Mumbai, Nov. 14: Rani Mukerji has shelled out Rs 33 lakh to a farmer for a Shirdi plot that apparently does not belong to him.

The actress, who bought the 16.5 cottahs in December 2005 in her father Ram Mukerji’s name, has been told that land records do not show Sampat More as the owner of the plot.

Rani had recently gone to the district tehsildar’s office to check out if the plot in Shirdi, 260km from Mumbai, had been transferred to her father’s name. She had paid Rs 1.32 lakh as stamp duty for the registration.

“The land records didn’t show Sampat More as the plot owner, so there was no question of him selling it to Ms Mukerji. Now we are investigating if the land deal was legal or not,” Shirdi tehsildar Yashwant Mane said.

The actress, who had planned to build a private holiday retreat in Shirdi, appears to have unwittingly waded into a legal tangle. Whether she stands to lose the plot or her money or both remains to be seen.

“This piece of land was sold several times since 1977. Its original owner was one Shivsagar who was leased the land by the Maharashtra government for personal cultivation. If the land belongs to the government, it cannot be sold. So, basically, we think the deal is illegal,” Mane said.

A legal notice will soon be sent to the actress, he said. Another would be sent to the farmer, who today told a news channel that the land belonged to him and that he had not “conned” Rani.

According to the Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1963, only farmers can buy agricultural land in Maharashtra. Rani’s father claimed he had government documents to prove the land was non-agricultural.

“We have not only paid the entire sum for the land, but also have all the required documents. Rani was planning to construct a house there as a holiday retreat. We have no plans to have any commercial structure on the land,” Ram said.

“We have been assured by our lawyer that the matter will be sorted out.”

Mane said the authenticity of the document would have to be verified as converting agricultural land to non-agricultural required written permission from the district collector.

Bombay High Court lawyer Amit Karkhanis said Rani’s lawyer may not have made all the mandatory checks while negotiating the deal, including land ownership history over the past 30-60 years or whether the plot was co-owned or mortgaged.

“Rani Mukerji was ignorant of these laws and there’s no excuse for this. She could have just spent a paltry Rs 20,000 and saved herself the trouble,” Karkhanis said.