“However, the (bail) applicant-Ravindra allegedly asked the data operator to select the option ‘movable’ instead of the option ‘agricultural land’ in the I-Sarita computer system of the revenue department, without obtaining the requisite stamp duty of Rs 20,99,99,500 of immovable property,” the court noted. This way, Taru facilitated the commission of offence to hide the real information and caused revenue loss to the state exchequer by not collecting the stamp duty, the court noted. “Applicant-Ravindra Taru (sub registrar) was dutybound to verify the accuracy of documents attached to the disputed sale deed and to collect the requisite stamp duty for registration of disputed sale deed in respect of sale transaction …,” the court noted. The controversial deal involves a 40-acre govt land parcel in Mundhwa, which was originally held by 272 watandars before govt took it over after the abolition of the Mahar Watan system in 1955 and gave it to the Botanical Society of India on lease till 2038.Tejwani, who claims to hold a power-of-attorney on behalf of the original land holders, executed the deed in favour of Amadea Enterprises LLP, in which late Ajit Pawar’s son, Parth, is a partner for a declared consideration of Rs 300 crore as the firm intended to set up a data centre. Taru is accused of colluding with Tejwani and Amadea’s another partner, Digvijay Patil, who is a signatory to the sale deed, to waive a 7% stamp duty (Rs 21 crore) and registered the deed despite the land being owned by ‘Mumbai Sarkar’ (govt) in the revenue records. Parth has not been named in the FIR registered on Nov 6, 2025, by the Bavdhan police based on a complaint by joint district registrar and stamp duty collector Santosh Hingane.On Tejwani’s bail plea, the court said, “Investigating officer submitted in the say that seven crimes of similar nature of cheating, breach of trust and forgery are registered against the applicant (Tejwani) at police stations Pimpri, Hinjawadi, Shivajinagar and Khadak. As per the say of IO, if the applicant is bailed out, then there is a possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence by her. Merely, the applicant is a woman cannot be the sole ground to use the discretion of bail in her favour.“As a common observation, the court said in both the orders, “Looking to the active role and involvement of applicant, serious nature of offences relating to the govt land involving the sale transactions of Rs 300 crore and non-payment of stamp duty of Rs 21 crore and facts and circumstance of the case, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail, at this juncture.”
