The Ulhasnagar Property Mutation case involving Flat No. 204 at Snehdeep Apartments has gained attention after documentary evidence and forensic observations were submitted before municipal authorities. Complainant Bhushan Baldev Khatri has questioned the authenticity of documents used in mutation proceedings connected to the transfer of property originally owned by Late Smt. Bhojibai Sidhwani. A comparative signature analysis reportedly identified differences between admitted and disputed signatures, prompting recommendations for examination by a Government Forensic Science Laboratory. Authorities are also reviewing questions relating to a Gift Deed, delayed mutation proceedings, and supporting documentation.

Ulhasnagar Property Mutation Case: Forensic Signature Observations Raise Questions Over Snehdeep Apartments Transfer Documents

A property mutation dispute involving Flat No. 204 at Snehdeep Apartments in Ulhasnagar has drawn renewed attention after documentary evidence, forensic observations, and notarization-related issues were placed before municipal authorities for consideration.

The Ulhasnagar property mutation case involving Flat No. 204 at Snehdeep Apartments has come under renewed scrutiny following objections raised regarding the transfer of the property in favour of Kiran Punjabi and subsequently Govind Punjabi.

The matter is currently under consideration before the Property Tax Department of the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation (UMC), where complainant Bhushan Baldev Khatri has questioned the authenticity and legality of documents relied upon during mutation proceedings.

Bhushan Baldev Khatri, identified as a builder and Secretary of Snehdeep Apartments, has sought a detailed review of records connected to the property originally owned by Late Smt. Bhojibai Sidhwani.

The dispute has also brought attention to the role of municipal officials, including Tax Assessor Vinod Kene, as questions continue to be raised regarding the handling and evaluation of documentary evidence submitted during proceedings.

Forensic Signature Comparison Submitted Before Authorities

One of the key issues raised during the proceedings relates to a comparative examination of admitted and disputed signatures attributed to Late Smt. Bhojibai Sidhwani.

According to documents submitted by Bhushan Baldev Khatri, the examination compared an admitted signature appearing on a document from approximately 1985 with a disputed signature appearing on a later property-related document.

The examination reportedly assessed line quality, pen movement, stroke formation, writing rhythm, pen pressure, spacing, alignment, fluency, and terminal strokes. The review was described as preliminary and based upon visible characteristics available from document copies.

According to the observations placed on record, the admitted signature allegedly displayed smooth pen movement, consistent line quality, natural variation, and fluent execution typically associated with habitual handwriting.

The disputed signature, according to the submitted report, allegedly exhibited hesitant pen movement, uneven stroke quality, interrupted rhythm, irregular pressure distribution, and characteristics described as suggestive of careful imitation rather than spontaneous writing.

The report further noted differences in letter formation, stroke construction, spacing patterns, alignment, and overall writing characteristics between the admitted and disputed signatures.

Questions Surround Gift Deed and Seventeen-Year Delay

According to submissions before municipal authorities, another central issue concerns a Gift Deed reportedly executed in 2003, while mutation proceedings were initiated nearly seventeen years later.

Bhushan Baldev Khatri has questioned the circumstances surrounding the delay and sought clarification regarding why the property transfer process was not undertaken closer to the date of the alleged transaction.

Documents cited during the proceedings reportedly indicate that the stamp paper used for the preparation of the Gift Deed was purchased by a third party with no apparent connection to the transaction.

The complainant has argued that the combination of delayed mutation proceedings, disputed signatures, and questions relating to supporting documents requires scrutiny before ownership-related municipal records are altered.

The forensic observations submitted before authorities reportedly concluded that the disputed signature differed materially from the admitted signature and recommended examination by a qualified Forensic Document Examiner or Government Forensic Science Laboratory.

The report also recommended that original documents be forwarded to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) or a State Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for scientific analysis.

Also Read: Redevelopment row grows at MHADA Oshiwara Royal Sand CHSL.

Related News: Property Tax Row Raises Ulhasnagar Governance Concerns.

Notarization Issues and Missing Original Records

Another significant aspect of the dispute concerns the notarization of Gift Deeds allegedly carried out by Abdul Sattar, whose details have become a subject of examination during municipal proceedings.

According to documents cited by Bhushan Baldev Khatri, questions were raised regarding the traceability and verification of Abdul Sattar in records referred to during the hearing process.

Proceedings reportedly recorded submissions indicating that the beneficiary of the mutation did not personally appear before the notary and that notarization was allegedly completed through an intermediary.

The complainant has contended that these circumstances require independent verification to determine whether statutory requirements governing notarization and execution of documents were properly followed.

A further issue relates to the alleged non-production of original documents despite earlier directions issued during proceedings. Bhushan Baldev Khatri maintains that original records remain essential for proper verification.

Public Interest Concerns and Demand for Independent Inquiry

In representations submitted before the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, Bhushan Baldev Khatri has argued that the matter extends beyond an individual property dispute and concerns the integrity of public records maintained by civic authorities.

The representation calls upon the Commissioner of Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation to preserve all records, examine documentary evidence, and consider statements recorded during the proceedings.

Among the issues highlighted are the seventeen-year delay in mutation proceedings, disputed signatures, alleged absence of original documents, and questions relating to the notarization process.

The complainant has also questioned whether municipal records should continue to reflect a disputed mutation until the authenticity of supporting documents is conclusively determined by competent authorities.

The matter remains pending before the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, and no final determination has yet been issued. All allegations, objections, forensic observations, and submissions remain subject to examination, verification, and any subsequent administrative or legal proceedings. Sprouts News will continue to monitor developments in the case.

Readers’ Appeal

If you possess information, property records, municipal documents, forensic reports, notarization records, or other evidence relating to this matter or any issue of public interest, you may contact Unmesh Gujarathi, Senior Investigative and Crime Reporter, and the Sprouts News Special Investigation Team (SIT). All credible information will be examined in accordance with journalistic and legal standards. Contact: 9322755098.

Editorial Note:

This article is based on publicly available FIR records, court case references, and reports published by multiple media organisations. The information is presented in the context of ongoing investigations and public interest reporting. Sprouts News does not make any judicial determination regarding the individuals mentioned and does not intend to defame any person or organisation. Any individual seeking clarification or wishing to provide an official response may contact the editorial team with verifiable documentation. The information is presented for journalistic and informational purposes.