Pune: Bombay High Court Questions Police Over Why Parth Pawar Was Not Named Accused In Mundhwa Land Deal

Koregaon Park, 10th September 2026: The Bombay High Court has questioned the police over why Parth Pawar was not named as an accused in connection with the alleged ₹300-crore Mundhwa government land deal involving around 40 acres. The court has sought a clear explanation from the investigating authorities regarding Pawar’s alleged role in the transaction.

The issue was raised during the hearing before a single bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar. The court’s query has brought renewed scrutiny to the circumstances surrounding Pawar’s alleged involvement in the land deal.

The case relates to the alleged purchase of around 40 acres of government land in Mundhwa by Amadea Enterprises LLP. Questions have been raised over various aspects of the transaction, including the role of individuals allegedly associated with the deal and the manner in which the land was transferred.

The police will now have to explain to the court why Pawar was not included as an accused. Their response at the next hearing is expected to clarify the investigating agency’s position on his alleged role.

Land Deal Under Scrutiny
The transaction had earlier triggered controversy over the valuation of the land. Claims made in connection with the case put the market value of the property at around ₹1,800 crore, while the land was allegedly purchased for approximately ₹300 crore.
Another issue concerns an alleged waiver of around ₹21 crore in stamp duty. The concession was reportedly granted on the condition that an IT park would be developed on the property, leading to allegations of loss of revenue to the government.

While the High Court has questioned the police over Pawar’s exclusion from the list of accused, the court has not held him guilty in the matter. The allegations, his exact role, and the findings of the investigation remain subject to the ongoing legal process.

The next hearing is expected to be significant, with the police likely to clarify their position on Pawar’s alleged involvement and explain why he was not named as an accused.