A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad on Tuesday (December 16, 2025) reserved its order on a criminal public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into alleged irregularities in the Lavasa hill station project in Pune district.
The PIL, filed by advocate Nanasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav, names former Union Minister Sharad Pawar, Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, and Baramati MP Supriya Sule, among others, alleging the grant of illegal permissions, misuse of public resources, and large revenue losses through stamp duty exemptions and land allotments.
Appearing in person, Mr. Jadhav argued that the petition was maintainable despite earlier proceedings. He told the Bench, “The PIL had not been dismissed earlier, but was only held to be mis-constituted, and therefore remained maintainable,” citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Uttarakhand vs. Balwant Singh Chaupal to stress that “genuine PILs raising issues of public importance should not be rejected on technical grounds.”
The petitioner also relied on judgments in State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights and Subrata Chattoraj vs. Union of India to argue that High Courts have wide powers under Article 226 to direct a CBI probe in cases involving serious allegations and failure of local agencies.
The petition alleges that permissions under Section 63(1A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act were illegally granted to Lavasa Corporation for purchasing agricultural land, despite there being no provision for hill station development at the time. It claimed the scam was “preplanned” and involved Yashomala Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd. merging with Lavasa Corporation without mandatory permissions, allegedly under Sharad Pawar’s influence.
The PIL states that Supriya Sule and her husband Sadanand Sule received shares in Lavasa following the merger, while Ajit Pawar, as Irrigation Minister and Maharashtra Krishna valley Development Corporation (MKVDC) chairman, approved leases and permissions that violated statutory norms.
The PIL claimed that the Lavasa project, spread across 18 villages in Mulshi and Velhe talukas, has remained unresolved for over a decade, during which farmers lost their livelihoods as agricultural land became unfit for cultivation. It stated that compensation paid to farmers was inadequate and that, with the right to property no longer being a fundamental right, vulnerable landowners had little legal recourse.
The petitioner also highlighted that complaints filed since December 2018 with Pune Police and Pune Rural Police were not acted upon. “Replies under RTI stated the matter did not fall within their jurisdiction,” Mr. Jadhav said, adding that local agencies failed to act for nearly five years, leaving him with no option but to seek court directions for a CBI probe.
Citing a Comptroller and Auditor General report and a People’s Commission of Inquiry report, the petitioner alleged losses running into hundreds of crores. The PIL claims that notifications issued in 2001 and 2002 allowed Lavasa to avoid paying crores in stamp duty, despite the project being commercial in nature.
It further alleged that about 141.15 hectares of MKVDC land were leased to Lavasa for 30 years without tenders, and permissions were granted to construct eight bandharas in the Mose valley. The Urban Development Department allegedly appointed Lavasa as a Special Planning Authority under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, which the PIL described as “first of its kind” and contrary to law. The petitioner stated that this SPA status was later withdrawn by the BJP–Shiv Sena government in 2017, acknowledging that the appointment was irregular.
To justify maintainability despite delay, the petitioner argued that “crime never dies” and cited Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, stating that mere delay cannot defeat criminal proceedings. The PIL also seeks directions for the case to be tried in a fast-track CBI court and for periodic status reports to be filed before the High Court.
The court also considered two intervention applications but indicated that it was not inclined to allow them at this stage. One application, filed by Sharad Pawar, sought impleadment, arguing that the petitioner suppressed facts and that the PIL was barred by constructive res judicata. Mr. Pawar’s plea stated, “The entire premise on which the complaint is filed has been adjudicated upon in 2018 and is also in issue before the Supreme Court by way of an SLP. Therefore, the present petition styled as ‘Criminal PIL’ is not maintainable.” The application added that he is “neither a proposed accused nor an accused and has every right to be heard before any order is passed.”
Another application by Mursalin Shaikh invoked Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking initiation of prosecution against Mr. Pawar for perjury and deliberate contempt, alleging that he filed a false and misleading affidavit to mislead the judiciary. The application cited multiple IPC provisions and the Contempt of Courts Act and sought exemplary costs along with prosecution.
The matter has been reserved for judgment.
Published – December 16, 2025 05:49 pm IST
