Pune Bavdhan Land Dispute: Rs 12.4 Crore Loan Case Names Teerth Realties MD, Director in Ganga Legend Project FIR

Pune, 3rd September 2026: Bund Garden police have registered a case against four people over the alleged forgery and registration of a sale deed concerning land earmarked for a construction project in Bavdhan Budruk, following an order by a judicial magistrate’s court in Shivajinagar.

The accused have been identified in the FIR as Vijay Tukaram Raundal, 58; Abhi Vijay Raundal, 33; Devendra Lalitkumar Shah, 62; and Umehani M. Dabhoiwala. Vijay Raundal is the Managing Director of Teerth Realties, while Abhi Raundal is a Director with the company.

The case was registered on September 1 based on a complaint lodged by Amit Jayprakash Goyal, 44, a director of Goyal Ganga India Private Limited. The allegations concern a 6,085.40-square-metre portion of a 1.92-hectare property at Bavdhan Budruk, where the company is developing a project named “Ganga Legend”.

According to FIR No. 224/2026, the company faced financial difficulties during the COVID-19 lockdown in 2021 and required funds to repay a loan taken from a finance company. It subsequently obtained ₹12.40 crore from Vijay Raundal at an annual interest rate of nine per cent.

The complainant alleged that an agreement for sale concerning part of the Bavdhan property was executed in Raundal’s name on February 1, 2021, solely as security for the loan. A power of attorney was also issued to Abhi Raundal for completing the document’s registration. The company claimed that possession and development rights remained with it.

The FIR stated that the company reimbursed ₹50 lakh towards stamp duty in December 2021 and paid ₹56.25 lakh as interest in May 2022. It allegedly offered to repay the entire principal amount in October 2022, but Raundal did not accept it.

The complainant further alleged that Raundal sent a legal notice on March 7, 2024, demanding ₹60.78 crore, calculated at an annual rate of 49.92 per cent for the period from January 28, 2022, to January 31, 2024. The notice allegedly stated that the agreement for sale would be cancelled after the amount was paid.

The company disputed the demand and offered to repay the ₹12.40-crore principal with interest at nine per cent. It subsequently issued a cancellation notice on August 13, 2024, seeking the cancellation of the agreement for sale and the power of attorney.

Police said the complainant accused Vijay Raundal, Abhi Raundal and Shah of subsequently conspiring to prepare and register an allegedly unauthorised sale deed on August 28, 2024.

The FIR alleged that an old no-objection certificate, which was valid only until February 5, 2021, and a company resolution previously used for the security agreement were reused to register the sale deed. Shah allegedly presented and signed the document on behalf of the company despite lacking the necessary authority.

The accused also allegedly attempted to obtain approval for mutation entry No. 7255 in the revenue records. However, the entry was rejected or cancelled following an objection filed by the company and a hearing before the competent revenue officer, the complaint stated.

The FIR further alleged that Raundal entered into a letter of intent and a term sheet with Dabhoiwala and received two payments totalling ₹2 crore, while Dabhoiwala was purportedly described as the landowner in one of the documents.

The case has been registered under Sections 3(5), 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, covering allegations including common intention, criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy. Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, which concerns money-lending without a valid licence, has also been invoked.

Police Sub-Inspector Amol Shamrao Dhumal is investigating the case.

Meanwhile, Teerth Realties denied the allegations, stating that it had been falsely implicated and that the facts presented in the case were fabricated. The company claimed that the police had previously given it a clean chit in the matter, but alleged that the case was subsequently registered under pressure. It further said that the dispute is already pending before the court and is sub judice.