Parth Pawar land deal: Why High Court queries led to a ‘more professional’ probe

After the Bombay High Court repeatedly asked why Rajya Sabha MP and NCP leader Parth Pawar, son of Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar, has not been named an accused in the Pune land deal case despite holding a 99 per cent stake in the firm, Maharashtra Director General of Police (DGP) Sadanand Date has ordered a “more professional and detailed investigation”.

The investigating officer found “no evidence” of Pawar’s complicity, and earlier this year a state-appointed committee led by IAS officer Vikas Kharage found no material evidence of direct wrongdoing or criminal liability by him. So why a “more professional and detailed investigation” now?

The deal

The FIR was registered at Khadak police station and later transferred to the Pune Economic Offences Wing (EOW). It is alleged that 40 acres of Mahar Watan land in Mundhwa, near Koregaon Park, leased to the Botanical Survey of India, was illegally sold to Amadea Enterprises LLP in May 2025 without mandatory state approval. The land, reportedly worth around Rs 1,800 crore, was allegedly bought for Rs 300 crore, with a stamp duty waiver of Rs 21 crore.

Pawar holds 99 per cent of Amadea and co-accused Digvijay Patil 1 per cent. Chargesheets of January 30 and April 2 named Patil and businessperson Sheetal Tejwani, who allegedly held power of attorney for 272 watandars. The DGP stated it was “unambiguously clear” that Tejwani “conspired with Digvijay Patil and cheated the government” by illegally executing a sale deed and “underselling” the land.

What the HC asked

On December 10, 2025, hearing Tejwani’s bail plea, the court asked if police were protecting Pawar. On September 7, Justice Madhav J Jamdar noted submissions questioning whether Pawar had not been named because he was “very highly influential”, and sought affidavits from the DGP and the investigating officer (IO).

On October 1, granting anticipatory bail to suspended Pune City tehsildar Suryakant Yewale, Justice Jamdar questioned the state over “serious allegations” against Amadea. The state’s lawyer argued that Amadea was an LLP, not a firm under the Indian Partnership Act, and that Patil had taken decisions based on his “independent existence” in it.

“Your stand is that the person who is having 99% shareholding is not responsible and the one who is accused is the person having 1% shareholding,” Justice Jamdar said. “Is the person who is having 99% share, Mr Parth Pawar, not a beneficiary of this transaction?”

What the EOW found

Story continues below this ad

In his affidavit, the IO, Assistant Police Inspector Dattatraya Mahadeo Waghmare, said bank records, revenue filings and interrogations yielded “no evidence for establishing financial complicity of Parth Pawar”, and no call records, communications, meetings or instructions linking him to the co-accused.

Pawar did not sign or witness the sale deed and gave no authorisation, resolution or power of attorney to Patil or anyone else to buy the land, the IO said. No money passed between Amadea and Tejwani, and no financial trail led to Pawar. Tejwani told investigators she negotiated “solely and exclusively” with Patil.

Under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, the IO added, “Pawar could not be made an accused by holding him vicariously liable.”

“Emphasis on detailed, professional probe”

However, state DGP Sadanand Date submitted an affidavit after personally perusing case documents and interacting with the Pune CP and the IO.

Story continues below this ad

“I say that on detailed scrutiny of investigation papers, I found that on certain points, indeed, there is definitely need for more professional and detailed investigation,” DGP Date stated, adding that instructions have been issued to the Pune Commissioner of Police (CP) “to ensure comprehensive investigation against each of the named accused and other suspects.”

Citing “sensitivity of the matter and concerns expressed regarding the investigation,” the DGP ordered Pune CP to review probe progress weekly and submit a report after six weeks.

The DGP office will monitor the probe in a periodical manner and make “all necessary efforts to ensure that all available leads are vigorously pursued by Pune CP and the IO.”