Overview
On December 16, 2025, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad reserved its order on a criminal public interest litigation (PIL) concerning alleged irregularities in the Lavasa hill station project located in the Pune district. The PIL seeks a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the matter.
Key Developments
Petition Details
The PIL, filed by advocate Nanasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav, implicates several prominent political figures, including former Union Minister Sharad Pawar, Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, and Baramati MP Supriya Sule. The allegations center around the grant of illegal permissions, misuse of public resources, and significant revenue losses allegedly incurred through stamp duty exemptions and land allotments.
Arguments Presented
- Maintainability of PIL: Mr. Jadhav argued that the petition was maintainable, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Uttarakhand vs. Balwant Singh Chaupal, emphasizing that genuine PILs raising issues of public importance should not be rejected on technical grounds.
- High Court Powers: The petitioner relied on judgments in State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights and Subrata Chattoraj vs. Union of India to assert that High Courts possess broad powers under Article 226 to direct a CBI probe in cases involving serious allegations and failure of local agencies.
Specific Allegations
- Illegal Permissions: 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 the absence of provisions for hill station development at the time.
- Preplanned Scam: It is claimed that the alleged scam was “preplanned” and involved Yashomala Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd. merging with Lavasa Corporation without mandatory permissions, purportedly under Sharad Pawar’s influence.
- Shareholding: The PIL states that Supriya Sule and her husband, Sadanand Sule, received shares in Lavasa following the merger.
- Violation of Norms: Ajit Pawar, in his capacity as Irrigation Minister and Maharashtra Krishna valley Development Corporation (MKVDC) chairman, allegedly approved leases and permissions that violated statutory norms.
- Impact on Farmers: The Lavasa project, spanning 18 villages in Mulshi and Velhe talukas, has remained unresolved for over a decade, leading to farmers losing their livelihoods as agricultural land became unfit for cultivation.
- Inadequate Compensation: The compensation paid to farmers was allegedly inadequate, leaving vulnerable landowners with limited legal recourse.
- Police Inaction: Complaints filed since December 2018 with Pune Police and Pune Rural Police were allegedly not acted upon.
- Financial Losses: Citing a Comptroller and Auditor General report and a People’s Commission of Inquiry report, the petitioner alleged losses running into hundreds of crores.
- Stamp Duty Evasion: Notifications issued in 2001 and 2002 allegedly allowed Lavasa to avoid paying crores in stamp duty, despite the project being commercial in nature.
- Land Lease Irregularities: Approximately 141.15 hectares of MKVDC land were allegedly leased to Lavasa for 30 years without tenders.
- Special Planning Authority: The Urban Development Department allegedly appointed Lavasa as a Special Planning Authority (SPA) under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, which the PIL described as “first of its kind” and contrary to law. This SPA status was later withdrawn by the BJP–Shiv Sena government in 2017.
Arguments for Maintainability
To justify maintainability despite the 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.
Intervention Applications
The court considered two intervention applications but indicated it was not inclined to allow them at this stage.
- Sharad Pawar’s Application: Sought impleadment, arguing that the petitioner suppressed facts and that the PIL was barred by constructive res judicata. He stated that the matter had been adjudicated upon in 2018 and is also in issue before the Supreme Court.
- Mursalin Shaikh’s Application: 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.
Exam Relevance
This case is relevant to GS2 (Polity and Governance) and GS3 (Economy and Infrastructure). It touches upon issues of public interest litigation, allegations of corruption, land acquisition, and the role of regulatory bodies. The case also highlights the interplay between development projects and the rights of affected communities.
Important Facts
- The case involves allegations of irregularities in the Lavasa hill station project.
- Key figures named in the PIL include Sharad Pawar, Ajit Pawar, and Supriya Sule.
- The PIL seeks a CBI probe into the alleged irregularities.
- The petitioner argues that permissions under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act were illegally granted.
- The case raises questions about the role and responsibilities of Special Planning Authorities (SPAs).