A high-level committee examining the controversial ₹300-crore land transaction in Pune—linked to a firm associated with Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar’s son Parth Pawar—has identified significant procedural violations but made no reference to Parth himself. The probe focused on a 40-acre portion of a 43-acre plot in Mundhwa, a high-value locality in Pune, which government records clearly show as state-owned land. Despite this, the land was sold to Amadea Enterprises LLP for ₹300 crore, a fraction of its estimated market value that could go as high as ₹1,800 crore.
The committee, led by Joint Inspector General of Registration Rajendra Muthe, submitted its findings on Tuesday. It highlighted multiple irregularities in the way the sale-purchase agreement—executed on May 20, 2025—was registered. Although the declared value of ₹300 crore should have attracted around ₹21 crore in stamp duty and taxes, investigators found that the deed was registered with only ₹500 in stamp duty and ₹30,000 in registration fees. This, the report noted, caused a substantial loss to the state exchequer.
Parth Pawar is listed as a partner in Amadea Enterprises LLP, but the committee clarified that his name does not appear on any document connected to the land transaction itself. Because of this, he is not mentioned anywhere in the findings. Instead, the report holds three individuals responsible: suspended sub-registrar Ravindra Taru, who handled the registration; Sheetal Tejwani, power of attorney holder for the sellers; and Digvijay Patil, a partner in Amadea. All three are already named as accused in a Pune Police FIR.
One of the most serious violations involved Taru’s use of a “skip” function in the registration software, allowing him to classify government land as movable property. By doing so, he bypassed key verification steps that would ordinarily prevent such a transaction. The report also flagged that Amadea Enterprises wrongly claimed eligibility for a stamp duty exemption without possessing the required District Industries Centre certificate. Additionally, defects were found in the power-of-attorney documents submitted for the sellers.
Officials emphasised that the panel’s mandate was restricted to identifying procedural lapses and quantifying revenue loss—not determining criminal culpability. Within that limited remit, the committee concluded that substantial irregularities had occurred and placed responsibility on the company and the individuals directly involved.
To address the wider implications of the case, the state government has formed a separate six-member committee chaired by the Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue). This panel will examine the violations more deeply and recommend appropriate disciplinary or legal action in the coming weeks.
