Maharashtra’s reported lease of 1,200 acres of government-controlled land in Ahilyanagar to Viswaraj Renewables Private Limited has become a test of how the state allocates public land for private energy projects. The immediate controversy is political because the company is owned by Sarang Lakhani, the son-in-law of NCP (SP) Lok Sabha MP Supriya Sule and the son of BJP MLC Arun Lakhani. But the larger urban and institutional question is more consequential: what rules govern the transfer of large public land parcels when the stated objective is renewable-energy development?
The land is located in Haregaon village and is held by the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation. According to the report, a government order issued on 5 October granted the land to Viswaraj Renewables on a 49-year lease. The report also refers to a provision described as a 48-year lease, extendable by another 48 years, creating a discrepancy that requires clarification from the underlying order. The lease terms, the rent payable, the security deposit and the precise project obligations are central to assessing whether the arrangement protects the public interest.
The controversy cannot be separated from the recent policy history of the site. In June, the government reportedly decided to develop a green energy park on the land through MahaUrja under a public-private partnership model. By September, the same 1,200-acre parcel was reportedly being allotted directly to a private company. Activist Anjali Damania has questioned who directed this change and why the government order did not explain the shift in approach.
That change matters because a public-private partnership and a direct lease are not identical institutional arrangements. A PPP generally requires the public authority to define the project, select a private participant and establish the responsibilities, returns and risks of each side. A direct lease, by contrast, places greater importance on how the lessee was selected, how the value of the land was assessed and what safeguards were written into the agreement. The available report does not establish whether a formal selection process was conducted before Viswaraj Renewables received the lease.
Damania has specifically questioned why the state did not invite tenders or competitive bids for such a large parcel. Her concern is not limited to whether the proposed energy project is legitimate. It also concerns whether competition could have produced better lease terms or higher revenue for the government. Without the valuation method, eligibility criteria, minutes of the relevant meetings and the complete lease agreement, it is not possible to independently assess that question. Those documents are therefore important to understanding whether the allocation was financially and procedurally defensible.
The order reportedly allows Viswaraj Renewables, with government approval, to lease the land to a subsidiary or another company within its group. It also reportedly exempts the company from obtaining a no-objection certificate from the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation for this purpose. These provisions make the identity and capacity of the eventual project operator significant. A lease granted to one entity but potentially transferred within a corporate group can make public scrutiny more difficult unless the government clearly discloses the ownership, control, technical qualifications and financial obligations of every participating company.
The reported waiver of a security deposit raises a separate governance issue. A security deposit can serve as protection against non-performance, delayed construction, unpaid dues or damage to public assets, although the appropriate amount and structure depend on the project. Damania has asked why the deposit was waived and why the land was not initially granted for a shorter trial period of five years. The report does not provide the government’s explanation, the project’s construction schedule or the conditions under which the lease could be cancelled. Without those details, the public cannot judge how the state intends to enforce delivery.
The sequence of land allocations adds to the significance of the case. The state reportedly issued an order on 23 August leasing 1,500 acres to the Nibe Group and separately allocated another 1,500 acres to the Defence Research and Development Organisation for defence-related projects. The additional 1,200-acre lease to Viswaraj Renewables means that several large parcels under the control of the state farming corporation are being assigned for non-farming purposes. The figures indicate the scale of the land-use transition, but the supplied report does not establish whether these parcels form one connected site or how much land remains under the corporation’s control.
The land also carries a historical ownership dispute. The report says that approximately 7,376 acres were taken from local farmers during British rule and that original owners and their families have continued to demand its return. On 15 September, the state government reportedly decided to return land to the original farmers. At the same time, land under the corporation’s control was being leased for defence and energy projects. This creates a difficult administrative question: how should historical restitution claims be reconciled with new public-purpose or commercial allocations made before those claims are fully resolved?
That question is not merely legal or political. Land is a fixed urban and regional resource, and decisions made outside a city can shape its future economic geography. A large renewable-energy project can require transmission connections, access roads, water arrangements, construction activity and new industrial relationships. If land rights remain contested, the project may also face institutional uncertainty even when the stated objective is aligned with the energy transition. The report does not establish that the project has been delayed or challenged in court, but it shows why title, possession and community claims must be settled transparently before implementation advances.
The meeting cited in the order reportedly took place on 23 June and included Revenue Minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule, Industries Minister Uday Samant and Environment Minister Pankaja Munde. The involvement of three departments points to the cross-cutting nature of the decision. Revenue authorities control or administer the land, industry authorities are concerned with investment and project development, while the environment department is connected to the ecological implications of a green-energy park. A credible allocation process would need to show how these objectives were reconciled and which department remained accountable for monitoring the lease.
The political connection has intensified scrutiny, but it does not by itself establish wrongdoing. Supriya Sule has said that her son-in-law’s business and professional activities are a private matter and that she cannot comment on them. The relevant public-interest issue is not the family relationship alone; it is whether the state applied transparent, consistent and competitively defensible rules to a valuable public asset. That distinction is essential if the debate is to move from political allegations to documentary accountability.
The available evidence confirms that the reported lease is part of a wider change in the use of land held by the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation, involving renewable energy, defence projects and claims by original farmers. It also establishes that questions have been raised about tendering, the shift from a PPP model, lease duration, security requirements, intra-group transfers and the protection of historical land rights. What remains unclear is the full text of the order, the financial terms, the selection process, the project timeline and the government’s response to the objections. Those documents and explanations will determine whether the Ahilyanagar allocation represents a transparent green-energy investment or another opaque conversion of public land.
