Mumbai: Prima facie sale deed not undervalued, no loss to exchequer, says PMLA court; grants bail to sub-registrar in case against Eknath Khadse

MUMBAI: Special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court recently granting bail to sub-registrar Ravindra Muley in the Pune land deal case registered by Enforcement Directorate against Nationalist Congress Party leader Eknath Khadse, observed that prima facie, the April 2016 sale deed did not appear to be undervalued for payment of stamp duty, as alleged.
The court also said that there is prima facie lack of evidence to show Muley’s connivance with co-accused, Khadse and of his actual involvement in any process connected with the proceeds of crime, including concealment, acquisition or use.
The ED has alleged that Khadse conspired with two others -- his wife Mandakini and son-in-law Girish Chaudhari -- to purchase land in Bhosari, Pune district at a distress value of Rs 3.75 crore when its value was almost Rs 23 crore.
Muley, the then sub-registrar, at Haveli, Pune district, was accused of conniving with them and misusing his position to register the sale by showing its market value at less than Rs 4 crore and not insisting on a no-objection certificate (NOC) from MIDC whose name appeared in a column on the land document.
Muley was taken into custody when he responded to ED summons. His non-arrest during the probe was also a relevant factor to consider for bail, said the court.
Muley’s lawyer Mohan Tekavde had argued and the court accepted that prima facie, no loss was caused to the state exchequer as he registered the sale deed only after being satisfied that the appropriate stamp duty of Rs 1.3 crore was paid against ready reckoner land value of Rs 22.83 crore.
Tekavde also said the land was not acquired by MIDC and hence there was no reason to seek its NOC and PMLA can’t be invoked in this case.
The court said it is not shown that Muley connived to register the sale deed which otherwise ought not to have been registered.
For ED, special public prosecutor Kavita Patil had opposed Muley’s bail plea saying it was a serious offence where he had “knowingly ignored the rights of MIDC". She said if released, he may tamper with evidence or abscond.
“Prima facie, it is not appearing that the sale deed registered on 28.04.2016 was undervalued for the purpose of paying the stamp duty and still it was registered by ignoring the rights and interests of MIDC in the land," said the order passed by special judge HS Satbhai. The order said that it is not shown that to register the sale, an NOC from MIDC was a pre-condition.
Besides, “In ownership column, the name of one Abbas Rasulbhai Ukani was appearing," the order said, adding that the Registration Act does not require the officer to verify the title of the transferor.
The bail was for a Personal release (PR) bond and surety of Rs 50,000. Given the nature of his employment, there is no likelihood of his fleeing, if released on bail, the court said.
In his reasonings for grant of bail, the special judge said, “It is not that though the ready reckoner was showing the market value as Rs 22,83,63,300 while registering the instrument, it was shown only as Rs 3.75 crore and on said amount of Rs 3.75 crore, the stamp duty was paid. It is appearing that an appropriate stamp duty Rs 1,37,05,000 at the rate of 6 per cent on the market value of Rs 22,83,63,300 has been paid on the deed."
It added, “The accused No 5 (Muley) cannot be blamed because the executors of the sale deed showed the consideration value as only Rs 3.75 crore. It appears that the correct stamp duty of Rs 1,37,05,000 was paid on the market value."
The court also referred to a Bombay high court judgment of 2003 to state that the “registration authority has no power to verify or ascertain as to whether the executant of the document has title to the property, which is sought to be dealt with under the document presented for registration."
He said, “Any inquiry by the registering authority in the matter of the title of the property, which is subject matter of document presented for registration, would be beyond the jurisdiction and powers of such authority."