A high-level inquiry committee examining the controversial ₹300-crore land deal in Pune’s Mundhwa area has submitted a detailed report indicting three individuals directly involved in the transaction, while clarifying that Parth Pawar—the son of Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar—cannot be held responsible since his name does not appear on any of the documents related to the sale. The committee’s findings come amid an ongoing multi-agency probe that has attracted significant political and administrative scrutiny, particularly because the contested land was later found to be government-owned and ineligible for sale.
Committee Rejects Claims of Parth Pawar’s Involvement, Focuses on Documented Roles
The committee, chaired by Joint Inspector General of Registration (IGR) Rajendra Muthe, submitted its report to IGR Ravindra Binwade, who forwarded it to the Pune Divisional Commissioner for further examination. The case centers around the sale of 40 acres of prime land in Mundhwa to Amadea Enterprises LLP, a firm in which Parth Pawar is listed as a partner.
However, the inquiry report makes a clear distinction between partnership status and documentary involvement. According to officials familiar with the findings, the committee established that Parth’s name does not appear in the sale deed, supporting documents, or any procedural filings. On this basis, investigators concluded that he cannot be held legally accountable within the scope of the current probe.
An official associated with the inquiry stated that the report focuses solely on the individuals whose signatures, authorizations, and applications were part of the transaction process. The committee noted that while Parth Pawar’s association with the firm is undeniable, the legal assessment centers on documented participation rather than ownership stakes.
The report does, however, detail several serious irregularities in the transaction, including the fact that the land in question belonged to the state government and should not have been sold at all. It further highlights that the firm was exempted from paying approximately ₹21 crore in stamp duty—an exemption that has now come under intense review.
The three individuals indicted in the report are suspended sub-registrar Ravindra Taru, Parth’s cousin and business partner Digvijay Patil, and Sheetal Tejwani, who held power of attorney on behalf of the landowners involved in the disputed sale. All three are already named in the FIR lodged by the police, and the committee’s findings strengthen the case against them.
This clarity regarding Parth’s role comes at a politically sensitive time, especially as the state government faces criticism over allegations of favoritism, misuse of official machinery, and possible irregularities in land transactions involving influential entities. The report’s nuanced position—indicting those directly involved while excluding individuals not appearing on documents—reflects an attempt to balance legal accuracy with public accountability.
The committee’s findings now form a crucial part of a broader series of administrative reviews. Two additional inquiry panels, one under the state revenue department and another under the settlement commissioner, are conducting independent investigations. Their reports, along with the Muthe committee’s findings, will be submitted to Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) Vikas Kharge. Kharge heads a six-member panel formed by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis to examine all facets of the now-scrapped land agreement.
This multi-layered review underscores the state’s effort to ensure procedural transparency while addressing the political sensitivity surrounding the case. The involvement of senior officials from multiple departments suggests that the government is seeking to establish a clear and defensible administrative record before determining future action.
Committee Recommends Major Reforms in Land Registration and Stamp Duty Procedures
Beyond identifying individuals responsible for the irregularities, the Muthe committee has recommended a series of procedural reforms to prevent similar lapses in future land transactions. The report underscores that the Mundhwa deal revealed systemic weaknesses in the scrutiny and registration of high-value land transfers, particularly those involving government-owned plots.
One of the key recommendations is that any request for stamp duty waiver must undergo thorough verification and receive explicit approval from the collector (stamp). The committee notes that the existing framework provides scope for discretionary approvals, which may lead to misuse or oversight when dealing with complex ownership histories.
The inquiry highlights the importance of strict adherence to Section 18-K of the Registration Act, 1908, which mandates that registration officials must verify documents such as the 7/12 extract, ownership records, and land status certificates before proceeding with any transaction. According to the findings, the 7/12 extract submitted for the Mundhwa land was outdated and incomplete, raising questions about how registration was permitted without updated verification.
Another key element of the report refers to a recent amendment to the Registration Act, introduced through a government notification on April 20, 2025. This amendment bars sub-registrars from registering sale or purchase transactions involving government-owned land. The committee, however, notes that the current restriction applies only when government ownership is “clearly established” in the records.
To strengthen the law’s intent, the committee recommends expanding the restriction to all cases where government ownership, possession, or interest is ambiguous or contested. Officials argue that this expansion is necessary because many land disputes arise from unclear ownership records, especially in areas where the government holds historical or partial rights.
Additionally, the report emphasizes the importance of better coordination between district-level land management offices, revenue authorities, and registration departments. According to the committee, fragmented systems and outdated databases often allow fraudulent or mistaken registrations to occur, particularly in regions with rapidly escalating land value.
In connection with the Mundhwa case, the IGR office has also issued a notice to Amadea Enterprises, demanding ₹42 crore in stamp duty following the cancellation of the transaction. Officials revealed that the firm had requested a 15-day window to respond, but the department has allowed only seven days, signaling a firm administrative stance.
These corrective measures reflect the broader lessons the government hopes to draw from the controversy. As land prices surge across urban and semi-urban areas, the state has recognised the need for enhanced safeguards to protect government property, ensure transparent registration practices, and maintain public trust in the land-transaction ecosystem.
The Mundhwa deal highlights the risks inherent in land transfers involving large private entities, political affiliations, and opaque ownership structures. The recommended reforms—once implemented—could serve as a deterrent against future irregularities and bring greater accountability to the registration system.
