Pune Farmer Files Civil Lawsuit Against Sonali Bendre and Goldie Behl
A significant legal dispute has emerged in Maharashtra's Pune district, where a farmer has initiated a civil lawsuit against Bollywood actress Sonali Bendre and her filmmaker husband Goldie Behl. The plaintiffs, Chandrakant Balu Shinde (50) and his mother Kamalbai (75), have leveled serious accusations of land encroachment and what they describe as "mafia-style" intimidation tactics against the celebrity couple.
Allegations of Illegal Land Takeover and Police Involvement
According to the complaint filed through advocate Vanraj Shinde, the Shinde family claims the celebrity couple utilized their social influence and allegedly sought assistance from local police authorities to forcibly take possession of their agricultural land. The disputed property spans approximately 30 guntha (over 32,000 square feet) located in Uksan village within Maval taluka of Pune district.
The civil suit, which was formally submitted last month before the Vadgaon Maval civil court, alleges that the Shinde family has maintained cultivation rights as "protected tenants" on this land since the 1940s. They contend that their names were improperly removed from official revenue records during the 1980s without receiving any proper notification or due process.
Historical Tenancy Rights and Property Transactions
The legal conflict traces its origins to complex property transactions that occurred over several decades. According to court documents, the original landowners allegedly sold the property to a local individual in 2012. Subsequently, a portion of this land was transferred to Goldie Behl through a purchase completed in March 2021.
The mother-son plaintiffs have declared these transactions "illegal and void" in their legal filing, asserting that their longstanding tenancy rights were never legally terminated through proper channels. They maintain that their agricultural tenancy protections should have prevented these property transfers from occurring without their consent or proper compensation.
Incident of Alleged Intimidation and Police Bias
The complaint details a particularly troubling incident alleged to have occurred on December 14, 2025. According to the plaintiffs, Sonali Bendre and Goldie Behl arrived at the disputed property accompanied by construction workers and heavy machinery, intending to commence unauthorized construction activities.
When Kamalbai attempted to intervene and question these actions, she claims she was directly threatened. Furthermore, the legal filing alleges that police officials present at the scene warned the Shinde family about potential repercussions if they continued to "harass" the celebrity couple, including the possibility of being framed in fabricated theft cases.
Sonali Bendre's Strong Denial and Counter-Allegations
In response to these serious accusations, Sonali Bendre has issued a firm denial through her legal representation. The actress maintains that her name does not appear on any official land purchase documents related to the Maval property in question.
Her lawyer, Raju Shinde, characterized the lawsuit as completely baseless, stating unequivocally: "This is a false case orchestrated solely to extort money." The defense position frames the legal action as an opportunistic attempt to leverage the celebrity status of the defendants for financial gain rather than a legitimate property dispute.
Legal Proceedings and Next Steps
The civil court has scheduled the next hearing in this contentious matter for April 24, where both parties will have the opportunity to present their arguments and supporting evidence. The case represents a classic confrontation between established agricultural tenancy rights and modern property transactions involving high-profile individuals.
As the legal process unfolds, this dispute highlights broader issues surrounding land rights, celebrity influence, and the challenges faced by agricultural communities in rapidly developing regions of Maharashtra. The outcome could potentially establish important precedents regarding protected tenancy rights versus subsequent property purchases by third parties.
