In the wake of mounting public scrutiny, Maharashtra’s political turf erupted over a land-deal controversy in Pune involving a government-owned plot and the son of Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar. What began as a seemingly routine real-estate transaction has turned into a flashpoint for questions over transparency, governance and political accountability.
Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar announced on November 8 that the Rs. 300 crore deal, centering on the transfer of 40 acres of state land in Mundhwa, Pune, to a firm co-owned by his son, Parth Pawar, had been cancelled. He defended his son, stating only a sale agreement had been executed, no money exchanged, and that he had no knowledge of the transaction until recent reports emerged.
At the same time, NCP supremo Sharad Pawar broke his silence, calling for a fair investigation into the deal. Speaking in Akola, he emphasised that government agencies must probe the transfer of the land and make the facts public. He sidestepped linking family ties with politics, observing that social and political relationships ought to be treated separately.
What the deal involved
Documents show the 40-acre plot in Mundhwa was to be transferred to a company in which Parth Pawar is one of two partners. The proposed sale attracted sharp criticism from opposition parties and activists, alleging irregularities in land valuation, process and political influence.
The state government formed a committee headed by Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) Vikas Kharge to examine the matter, with a report expected within a month. The Chief Minister, Devendra Fadnavis, remarked that anyone found guilty must face action, including Ajit Pawar, if necessary.
In his statement, Ajit Pawar said he hears about such things “3-4 months ago” but had no direct role. He insisted neither his office nor he made any calls or provided assistance for this deal. He further pointed out that Parth’s name was omitted from the FIR filed in Pune because he may not have signed the document.
Family, politics and governance
Sharad Pawar’s response is especially noteworthy: he explicitly distinguished between family relations and political conduct, acknowledging internal electoral rivalries within the family but arguing that the process must not be compromised. He remarked that while his daughter Supriya Sule offered personal views, he would focus on ensuring democratic integrity.
The political optics are complex: here is a major ruling-alliance leader, Ajit Pawar, whose son stands linked to a high-value land deal involving government property. The primary opposition, meanwhile, sees this as a test of whether accountability will apply uniformly. Sharad Pawar’s demand for a fair probe implicitly underlines that perception.
Implications for the government and governance
For the Maharashtra government, this episode raises questions on how state land is transferred, the transparency of such deals, and whether political power skewed the process. The fact that the deal was cancelled may ease immediate pressure, but the demand for investigation suggests the story is far from over.
Opposition voices allege this is not mere nepotism but part of a larger culture of “land-theft after vote-theft,” to quote one senior leader. The government’s formation of a probe panel signals caution but also underlines that institutional scrutiny is unfolding.
The broader context
This land row comes amid rising scrutiny on governance of urban land parks, redevelopment deals and politically connected real-estate transfers. Pune, in particular, has seen rapid growth, escalating land values and rising pressures on regulatory oversight. A deal involving tens of crores, high-profile names and state land inevitably draws both media and civic attention.
Sharad Pawar’s insistence on a fair investigation signals that even within political alliances, expectation for transparent process remains high. Ajit Pawar’s cancellation of the deal suggests the government is keen to nip potential fallout, but the committee’s findings will be critical in determining whether this is resolved as a mis-step or a deeper governance lapse.
What comes next
The committee must unravel crucial questions: Was due process followed? Was the land valuation fair and open competitive bidding used? Were officials complicit? Did political connections override regulatory norms?
As the probe unfolds, stakeholders will be watching how the government treats high-profile figures when red flags emerge and whether the principle of “no one above the law” is upheld in practice. Depending on its outcome, this episode could shape public perceptions of land governance, political accountability and rule-based development in Maharashtra.
For now, the cancellation of the deal puts a pause on immediate controversy, but the demand for clarity and the appointment of an independent panel suggest this chapter is only just beginning.
