Pune: Pune court has cancelled a registered sale deed for nearly 40 acres of land, valued at around ₹2,000 crore, ruling against the agreement between Power of Attorney (PoA) holder Sheetal Tejwani and Amadea Enterprises, in which Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar’s elder son, Parth Pawar, is a partner.
The Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, passed the order in Special Civil Suit No 2213 of 2025. The judgment was delivered on May 8, 2026, and the formal decree was issued on July 3, a copy of which was made available on Thursday.
The court directed the Sub-Registrar at Haveli-4, Pune, to update its records and Index-II to show that the sale deed has been cancelled. It also ruled that, following the cancellation, Amadea Enterprises LLP “is not entitled to claim any rights, title and interest in the suit property”.
The dispute relates to a registered sale deed dated May 20, 2025, for Mahar Watan land spread across nearly 40 acres in Survey Nos 88/1 to 26 at the upmarket Mundhwa area where the Botanical Survey of India’s garden is currently located.
The petition was filed by 272 watandars (land holders), to whom the state had allocated Mahar Watan land, and their legal heirs through their power of attorney holder, Sheetal Kisanchand Tejwani, against Amadea Enterprises, represented by Digvijay Amarsinha Patil. Patil is a partner in Amadea and cousin of Parth Pawar.
{{/usCountry}}The petition was filed by 272 watandars (land holders), to whom the state had allocated Mahar Watan land, and their legal heirs through their power of attorney holder, Sheetal Kisanchand Tejwani, against Amadea Enterprises, represented by Digvijay Amarsinha Patil. Patil is a partner in Amadea and cousin of Parth Pawar.
{{/usCountry}}“The Defendant (Amadea) has further admitted that no physical possession of the suit property was ever delivered, and that the transaction did not progress beyond registration due to the prevailing situation,” the Court in its original order observed.
The Judge noted that these categorical admissions by the plaintiff and defendant demonstrate that there is no factual dispute whatsoever between the parties and that the only remaining step is the formal cancellation of the Sale Deed. “In their petition, landholders said they had agreed to register the sale deed only after Amadea assured them that the sale amount would be paid at the time of registration or immediately afterwards. However, they told the court that despite the registration of the document, they did not receive any payment,” stated the order.
The suit also stated that after repeated follow-ups, Amadea informed the landowners’ attorney, Sheetal Tejwani, on November 6, 2025, that it was unable to pay the agreed amount. The landowners also maintained that they never handed over physical possession of the land and continued to remain in possession.
The landowners argued that under the law, payment of the agreed consideration is an essential part of a valid sale. Since no payment was made, they sought cancellation of the sale deed and a declaration that it had no legal effect.
During the proceedings, Amadea accepted the landowners’ claims in its written statement, leaving no factual dispute before the court.
“The defendant (Amadea) has admitted all the material facts giving rise to the present proceedings. It is an admitted position that the defendant executed the registered sale deed but the consideration amount could not be paid by the defendant,” the court observed.
The court also recorded that “no physical possession of the suit property was ever delivered” and that the transaction “did not progress beyond registration”.
Since Amadea admitted the facts, the court said there was no need for a full trial.
“The admissions made by the Amadea in its written statement are clear, unambiguous, unconditional and unequivocal. The Defendant has not disputed either the factual background or the relief sought by the Plaintiff,” the court said.
On the issue of stamp duty, the court clarified that it had not decided whether any refund should be granted. However, it said both parties were free to approach the competent authority under the Maharashtra Stamp Act for refund or adjustment of stamp duty, if applicable, and that the court’s decree would serve as proof that the sale had been cancelled.
The court also directed that a copy of its judgment be sent to the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Haveli-4, Pune, for compliance.