Pune land deal: Is police protecting Deputy CM's son Parth Pawar? asks HC

Mumbai, Dec 10 (PTI) The Bombay High Court on Wednesday questioned whether the police were protecting Parth Pawar, son of Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, by not naming him in a land deal FIR, and investigating only other persons.

A single bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar directed this searching question to the prosecution while hearing a pre-arrest bail plea filed by businesswoman Sheetal Tejwani, an accused in the case.

Noting that Parth Pawar was not named in the FIR, Justice Jamdar asked: "Is the police protecting the son of the deputy chief minister and only investigating others?" Public Prosecutor Mankunwar Deshmukh said the police investigating the case will take necessary action as per the law.

The sale of 40 acres of land in Pune's upscale Mundhwa area for Rs 300 crore to Amadea Enterprises LLP, in which Parth Pawar is a majority partner, came under scrutiny after it emerged that the plot belongs to the government and it could not be sold. The firm was also allegedly exempted from paying Rs 21 crore in stamp duty.

A committee headed by the Joint Inspector General of Registration (IGR) had indicted Digvijay Patil (Parth Pawar's business partner and cousin), Sheetal Tejwani (who held the power of attorney on behalf of the land sellers), and sub-registrar Ravindra Taru. They were named in an FIR registered at a police station in Pune.

Parth Pawar was not named as his name didn't appear on any document, a senior official had said.

Tejwani was arrested on December 3 by the Economic Offences Wing of Pune Police. She is in police custody till December 11.

A second FIR was registered against her at Bavdhan police station in the same case, prompting her to file an anticipatory bail plea.

Tejwani's counsel, Rajiv Chavan, and advocate Ajay Bhise, argued that it was the second FIR, even as the investigation was underway by the EOW of Pune Police.

Public Prosecutor Deshmukh said that since Tejwani had filed a pre-arrest bail plea before the concerned sessions court, seeking similar relief from the high court is an abuse of the process of law.

When the bench expressed its inclination not to entertain the plea, Tejwani's advocates withdrew the petition.

In her plea, Tejwani stated that the land deal was a bona fide registered sale transaction.

The case doesn't disclose the essential ingredients of any cognisable offence or "Mens rea" (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing) on her part, as she had acted only as a duly constituted holder of Power of Attorney for the lawful owners, it stated.

The same transaction and documents are already under investigation by the Economic Offences Wing, making the second FIR duplicative and oppressive, the petition said.

The allegations in the FIR are manifestly civil-revenue in nature, bereft of criminal intent, and founded upon demonstrably incorrect assumptions regarding stamp duty and title, it added.

The Opposition had alleged that the actual cost of the land, which was categorised as “Mahar watan” land, was much higher than Rs 300 crore.

The "mahar watan" term refers to the hereditary landholding system, where Mahars, or members of the Scheduled Caste community, were granted land for providing labour to the village administration.

As per rules, such watan lands cannot be sold without prior approval from the state government.

Amid a political firestorm, Deputy CM Ajit Pawar had said that Parth and his business partner were not aware that the land belonged to the government. He claimed the controversial transaction has now been cancelled. PTI SP NSK