Pune Court Reserves Order on Bail in Rs 21 Crore Stamp Duty Waiver Case
The court of Additional Sessions Judge DP Ragit in Pune has reserved its order on the bail applications of power-of-attorney holder Sheetal Tejwani and suspended sub-registrar Ravindra B Taru. The case involves an alleged illegal stamp duty waiver in the registration of a sale deed for a 40-acre government land parcel at Mundhwa.
Details of the Alleged Stamp Duty Waiver
The government's case asserts that the sale deed between Tejwani, who holds the power of attorney on behalf of 272 watandars (original landholders), and Amadea Enterprises LLP was registered with a waiver of 7% stamp duty. This amounts to Rs 21 crore against a consideration of Rs 300 crore, allegedly causing significant revenue loss to the government.
Notably, late deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar's son, Parth, is one of the two partners in Amadea Enterprises. However, Parth has not been named in the FIR registered by the Bavdhan police. The other partner, Digvijay Patil, has been named in the case. Currently, Tejwani and Taru are in judicial custody, while police have recorded Patil's statement.
Arguments Presented by the Defense Lawyers
Tejwani's lawyer, Dipali Kedar Kushendra, argued that the sale deed was scrutinized, accepted, and registered by competent authorities in accordance with the law. She emphasized that the statutory obligation to pay stamp duty lies with the purchaser, Amadea Enterprises, and not with Tejwani, who acted solely as a lawful power-of-attorney holder.
"The state has issued a demand notice for the alleged stamp duty insufficiency to the purchaser, and adjudication proceedings are pending before the stamp authorities," Kushendra submitted.
Taru's lawyer, Sangramsinh Desai, contended that his client was falsely implicated. He highlighted a delay in the registration of the FIR, raising serious concerns about possible manipulation and concoction. Desai argued that there is no prima facie case against Taru and no evidence to show he derived any wrongful gain from the alleged offence.
"If any error occurred in the calculation of stamp duty or exemption, it would amount to an inadvertent mistake and not a criminal offence," Desai asserted.
Prosecution's Opposition to Bail Pleas
District Government Pleader Pramod Bombatkar opposed the bail applications, presenting key points against Taru. He stated that on April 24, 2025, Taru refused to register the deal due to lack of necessary permissions from competent authorities and missing stamp duty. Taru even provided a letter to one of the watandars regarding this refusal.
However, on May 20, 2025, Taru completed the registration by granting the stamp duty waiver. Bombatkar further alleged that in the system, Taru showed the land as movable property. He pointed out that the land belongs to Mumbai Sarkaar, yet the registration was done without the signature of a competent authority. The state has also opposed Tejwani's bail plea, reinforcing its stance against both applicants.
Background and Implications
The land in question was taken over by the government after the abolition of the Mahar Watan system. The case highlights significant issues in land registration processes and stamp duty compliance, with potential implications for revenue collection and legal accountability in property transactions.
As the court deliberates on the bail orders, the outcome could set a precedent for similar cases involving alleged financial irregularities in government land deals. The involvement of high-profile individuals adds to the case's complexity and public interest.
