A Pune property fraud case involving two high-value flats, an alleged change in project use and a repayment agreement that reportedly remained unpaid has brought a decade-old real estate dispute back into focus. The FIR, filed by Mumbai’s Bandra-Kurla Complex police on October 8, names former Rajya Sabha member and developer Sanjay Kakade along with three others in connection with an alleged property fraud involving Rs 5.06 crore paid for two proposed apartments in Kalyani Nagar.
The case is significant not only because of the amount involved, but because the alleged dispute moved through several stages over nearly 11 years: booking of residential apartments, delayed construction, an alleged conversion of the project into a commercial development, proposed alternative properties and, finally, a repayment understanding that the complainants say was not honoured. It shows how a property transaction can remain unresolved even after the original project promise has changed substantially.
According to the FIR details reported by Civic Mirror, businessman Sumant Bhagwan Thakur filed the complaint on behalf of investors Avinash Gandhi and Amit Gandhi. The complaint names Kakade, Chandrakant Kanhaiya Bora and Ramesh Bhosale as directors of Grand Maratha Construction Private Limited. Atul Bohra, described in the report as a former representative of Kolte-Patil Developers Limited, is also named as an accused.
The allegations remain subject to investigation. Kakade has denied them, calling the case false and the amount claimed incorrect. He said it was filed to damage his reputation and stated that a court had previously ruled in his favour. He also said the police had been informed about that position.
The property dispute began in January 2015, when the two investors allegedly booked apartments numbered 901 and 902 on the ninth floor of a residential project in Kalyani Nagar. Each apartment was described as measuring 3,818.12 square feet, with terrace and parking facilities. The total agreed price for the two units was Rs 13.9554 crore.
The investors are alleged to have deposited Rs 5.0656 crore into Grand Maratha Construction’s bank account as booking money. The complaint also alleges that Kakade issued allotment letters for both apartments. However, the investors reportedly did not receive possession of the promised homes.
The dispute highlights the importance of the original contractual promise in a property transaction. The complaint does not describe a simple delay alone. It alleges that the project had not made the expected construction progress by March 2016 and that the promised apartments were still not handed over. The question then shifted from when the homes would be completed to whether the project would continue to be residential at all.
## How the project allegedly changed
According to the complaint, the residential project was converted into a commercial project in 2017 without the investors’ consent. The investors were allegedly offered showrooms in the revised commercial development instead. In December 2017, however, they were reportedly told that the showrooms were not available and that the promised commercial spaces could not be allotted.
This alleged change in project character is central to the dispute. A buyer who pays for a residential apartment is not merely purchasing floor area. The transaction also involves an identified use, location, configuration, amenities and a possession expectation. When the nature of the proposed asset changes, the value and purpose of the original agreement can also change. In this case, the complaint alleges that the investors were moved from residential apartments to commercial premises and then denied the alternative commercial allocation as well.
The complaint further states that an alternative property in another project was offered after the showroom proposal failed. In February 2018, Kakade allegedly expressed willingness to provide two apartments in a project in Hinjewadi. The investors, however, reportedly did not receive those promised units either.
The sequence described in the FIR is important because each proposed solution appears to have created a new commitment without resolving the original financial exposure. The original Kalyani Nagar apartments were not delivered, the alleged commercial alternative was unavailable, and the proposed Hinjewadi apartments were also not allotted, according to the complaint.
## The 2023 repayment agreement
The dispute later moved from alternative allotment to repayment. The complaint refers to a memorandum of understanding allegedly executed in 2023. Thakur said he was present as the authorised representative of both investors when the agreement was made.
According to the FIR, Kakade agreed to return the original booking amount of Rs 5.0656 crore along with interest of Rs 2.9343992 crore, taking the total proposed repayment to Rs 8 crore. The complainants allege that the amount was not paid despite the agreement.
That alleged failure is what gives the dispute its unusually long institutional tail. A transaction that began with a booking payment in 2015 was followed by stalled construction, a reported change in project use, alternative property proposals and a repayment document eight years later. The FIR now places the underlying documents and the repayment arrangement within the scope of a police investigation.
The police have registered the case under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to cheating and acts carried out by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, according to the report. The investigation has been assigned to Police Inspector Mahendra Ashok Waghmare, while Police Inspector Suresh Gulabshing Padvi registered the FIR.
The report said investigators are expected to examine the property transaction documents, the allotment letters, the alleged change in the project’s use and the agreement concerning repayment of Rs 8 crore. These documents will be important in establishing what was promised, what was paid, whether the project changed formally and what obligations were recorded in subsequent agreements.
## What the case reveals about real estate disputes
The case illustrates why property disputes often outlast the construction cycle for which they began. A buyer may initially be dealing with a construction delay, but the dispute can become more complicated when project plans change, ownership or representation becomes contested, alternative assets are proposed, and repayment commitments are made years after the original booking.
It also demonstrates the gap between a financial claim and the asset originally promised. The two proposed apartments had a combined agreed price of Rs 13.9554 crore, while the alleged booking payment was Rs 5.0656 crore. The complaint then refers to an agreed repayment of Rs 8 crore, including interest. These figures show how the monetary dispute evolved as the original delivery obligation remained unresolved.
The case also involves multiple corporate and individual actors. The complaint names three directors of Grand Maratha Construction and a person identified as a former representative of another developer. That does not establish liability against any accused person. It does, however, mean that the investigation will have to examine the roles played by each individual and entity in accepting the booking amount, issuing allotment documents, communicating changes to the project and agreeing to the later repayment arrangement.
For buyers, the practical lesson from the allegations is the importance of preserving every stage of a property transaction: booking forms, bank records, allotment letters, correspondence about construction progress, revised offers, consent documents and settlement agreements. The dispute described here spans several proposed solutions, making the documentary record particularly important.
For authorities, the case raises a broader administrative question about how project changes are communicated and recorded. The supplied report does not establish whether the alleged conversion from residential to commercial use received all required approvals or how the investors’ consent was treated in the relevant documents. Those are matters for the investigation and any connected legal proceedings to establish.
## The larger urban question
Kalyani Nagar is identified in the complaint as the location of the original high-value project, while Hinjewadi appears in the alleged alternative offer. The dispute therefore also reflects the changing value and development pressures of Pune’s urban real estate market, although the supplied material does not provide broader market data or establish the reasons for the project’s alleged change in use.
The central urban issue is not simply whether two apartments were delivered. It is whether a buyer can obtain a reliable and enforceable asset after making a substantial payment into a development project, particularly when the project changes form and proposed remedies are repeatedly substituted. A city can continue to add new housing and commercial space while individual buyers remain trapped in old disputes involving incomplete delivery and uncertain recovery.
The FIR does not determine whether the allegations will be proved. It begins an investigation into a transaction whose key events stretch from 2015 to 2023. The immediate issues to watch are the police examination of the allotment records, project documents and repayment agreement, as well as the legal response of the accused and the status of any earlier court ruling referred to by Kakade. Until those processes establish the facts, the allegations must remain attributed to the complaint.
