Mumbai: Two significant developments emerged from Maharashtra on Wednesday involving a major land classification issue and a high-profile fraud case. The Maharashtra government announced it will approach the Supreme Court seeking relief over the ‘forest’ tag imposed on 42,242 hectares of land in Sindhudurg district.
Meanwhile, in Mumbai, a metropolitan magistrate court denied bail to Purushottam Chavan, husband of IPS officer Rashmi Karandikar, in connection with a ₹24.78 crore cheating case being investigated by the Mumbai Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW).
Maharashtra to Approach Supreme Court Over Sindhudurg Land Issue
The Maharashtra government has decided to move the Supreme Court to challenge the classification of 42,242 hectares of land in Sindhudurg district as forest land.
State Revenue Minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule made the announcement in the Maharashtra Assembly on Wednesday. According to him, the government will seek relief from the apex court to address concerns related to the classification and its implications for local residents and development activities in the region.
The move is expected to be part of the state government’s effort to resolve long-standing land use disputes and administrative challenges caused by the forest tag on a large portion of land in the coastal district.
Read also: ACC Empanels 2010 Batch IAS Officer Shankar Lal Kumawat for Joint Secretary-Level Posts
Court Denies Bail to IPS Officer Rashmi Karandikar’s Husband
In a separate development in Mumbai, a metropolitan magistrate at the Esplanade court refused bail to Purushottam Chavan, husband of IPS officer Rashmi Karandikar.
Chavan was arrested by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai Police on May 20, 2025, for allegedly cheating around 20 people of ₹24.78 crore.
The accused is alleged to have collected money from victims by promising them state government quota flats at concessional rates in Mumbai, Thane, and Pune.
Defence Arguments in Bail Plea
During the bail hearing, Chavan’s lawyer argued that the accused had already been granted bail by the Bombay High Court in a related money-laundering case.
The defence also claimed that continued custody was unnecessary and cited several medical ailments as grounds for granting bail.
Prosecution Opposes Bail
The prosecution strongly opposed the bail application, arguing that Chavan had strong connections with government authorities and could misuse his influence if released.
Investigators also raised concerns that his release could affect the victims and potentially interfere with the ongoing investigation.
Victims in the case also objected to the bail plea.
Court’s Observations
After considering the arguments presented by both sides and the concerns raised by investigators, the court denied the bail request.
The court observed that the accused appeared to be influential and capable of creating problems for victims if released.
In its order, the court stated:
“There is every possibility that the accused may influence the witnesses and victims, which will create a hindrance in the way of prosecution.”
The court also noted that sufficient material on record indicates the accused’s involvement in the alleged offence, justifying the denial of bail at this stage.
Ongoing Investigation
The Economic Offences Wing continues to investigate the case, which involves allegations of large-scale financial fraud linked to housing promises under state quota schemes.
Authorities are examining financial transactions and other evidence to determine the full extent of the alleged scam.
