The Bombay High Court has questioned the Maharashtra government over why Rajya Sabha MP Parth Pawar has not been named as an accused in the Mundhwa land case despite holding a 99% stake in Amadea Enterprises LLP, the firm linked to the disputed land transaction.
Justice Madhav Jamdar raised the issue on Thursday while hearing the anticipatory bail plea of suspended Pune City Tehsildar Suryakant Yewale, who is facing allegations in connection with the case.
The court noted that Digvijay Patil, who holds a 1% stake in Amadea Enterprises, has been named as an accused, while Pawar, who holds the remaining 99% stake, has not been included in the accused list.
The judge questioned the investigating officer’s position on Pawar’s role in the transaction.
“Your stand as the Investigating Officer (IO) is that the person who is having 99 percent shareholding is not responsible and the one who is accused is the person having 1 percent shareholding,” the court observed, according to Bar and Bench.
The court also questioned whether Pawar, as the majority stakeholder in the company, could be considered a beneficiary of the transaction. The judge further noted that the investigating officer had filed an affidavit stating that Pawar was not responsible while Patil, who held only a 1% stake, was facing allegations.
What Is The Mundhwa Land Case?
The case relates to the alleged sale of around 40 acres of government-held land in Pune’s Mundhwa area to Amadea Enterprises LLP for Rs 300 crore.
The land was classified as Mahar Watan land, a category of land historically associated with hereditary grants to members of the Mahar community. The parcel was also leased to the Botanical Survey of India.
The transaction has been under investigation over allegations of irregularities in the transfer of the land and the procedure followed for the sale.
Authorities have also examined the issue of stamp duty linked to the transaction. The deal initially involved payment of only Rs 500 in stamp duty, while authorities later raised a demand of around Rs 21 crore, along with a penalty. Amadea Enterprises has challenged the stamp duty demand.
Court Questions Difference In Treatment
During Thursday’s hearing, Justice Jamdar focused on the difference between the treatment of the two partners of Amadea Enterprises.
While Patil, the 1% stakeholder, has been named in the case, Pawar, the 99% stakeholder, has not been made an accused. The court questioned the investigating officer’s reasoning for this distinction.
The High Court has previously raised questions over Pawar’s omission from the case. In September, the court had sought responses from the Maharashtra Director General of Police and the investigating officer after submissions were made regarding why Pawar had not been named as an accused.
The investigation concerns alleged irregularities surrounding the transfer of the Mundhwa land. Police and other authorities have examined the roles of several individuals involved in the transaction, including officials and people associated with the sale.
The High Court’s latest observations concern the investigating agency’s decision not to name Pawar as an accused and do not by themselves establish criminal liability against him.
