Rajasthan IAS-IPS Property Deal: Report examines 40 resort villas and cottages purchased for ₹6.16 crore and leased back for ₹1.80 crore annually, raising questions about property disclosures.
Qalam Times News Network
Jaipur, 29 October 2026
Rajasthan IAS-IPS Property Deal: A reported series of real estate transactions involving a senior Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, his wife, an Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, and their family members has drawn attention after 40 villas and cottages at two Ananta-branded resorts in Rajasthan were reportedly purchased from the same company and subsequently leased back to it. According to a report by Dainik Bhaskar, the properties were acquired over approximately two and a half years, with the lease agreements together providing for annual rental income of ₹1.80 crore.
The Rajasthan IAS-IPS Property Deal involves Shikhar Agrawal, a senior IAS officer serving as Additional Chief Secretary in the Rajasthan government, and his wife, Prashakha Mathur, an Additional Director General of Police. The company involved is Goyal Fashions Private Limited, which operates hotels and resorts under the Ananta brand. The reported transactions have attracted attention not only because of their scale but also because questions have been raised about the disclosure of the properties in the officers’ annual Immovable Property Returns (IPRs).
According to the newspaper’s investigation, the family purchased 20 cottages at the company’s resort in Bujhda, Udaipur, in September 2023. A further 20 villas at its property in Ajabgarh, Alwar, were registered in March 2026. Dainik Bhaskar reported that it had examined the registration documents relating to all 40 properties.
Rajasthan IAS-IPS : Properties Purchased for ₹6.16 Crore and Leased Back to the Seller
The reported purchase price for the 40 cottages and villas was approximately ₹6.16 crore. Following the acquisitions, the properties were leased to Goyal Fashions Private Limited—the same company from which the family had purchased them.
The rental terms described in the report provide for an annual lease payment of ₹4 lakh for each of the 20 cottages at Bujhda. Each of the 20 villas at Ajabgarh was reportedly leased at ₹5 lakh per year. On that basis, the combined annual rental income from the 40 properties amounts to ₹1.80 crore.
The report further states that the sale deeds and lease deeds were registered on the same day at the respective sub-registrar offices. The documents relating to the Bujhda cottages were registered at the Barapal Sub-Registrar’s Office on 29 September 2023. The registrations for the Ajabgarh villas took place at the Pratapgarh Sub-Registrar’s Office on 27 March 2026.
The individuals named in connection with the registrations include Shikhar Agrawal, Prashakha Mathur, her mother, Manjula, and her father, Raghuvansh Narayan Mathur. According to the report, Prashakha also completed the registration formalities for the couple’s two sons under a power of attorney.
The arrangement has attracted interest because the properties were reportedly sold by a company that subsequently became their lessee. However, the reported transactions and their financial terms, by themselves, do not establish any wrongdoing. Any assessment of their legality or propriety would require examination of the relevant documents, applicable service rules and any official findings.
Rajasthan IAS-IPS :Property Disclosure Questions Raised by Annual IPR Filings
Another significant aspect of the report concerns whether the properties were fully reflected in the officers’ annual Immovable Property Returns. These declarations are intended to record the immovable assets that government officers are required to report under the applicable service rules.
According to Dainik Bhaskar, 28 of the 40 properties were registered in the names of Shikhar Agrawal and Prashakha Mathur, with 14 properties attributed to each. The newspaper’s report raises questions about the extent to which these assets appeared in their annual declarations.
Agrawal reportedly disclosed details of all 14 properties attributed to him in an IPR filed on 7 January of the current year. By contrast, Mathur’s IPR, reportedly filed on 8 January, contained no property details, despite 14 villas and cottages having been registered in her name, according to the report.
The difference between the reported registrations and the information described in the returns warrants careful scrutiny. Nevertheless, the available account does not, on its own, establish whether any omission was deliberate, whether supplementary disclosures were made, or whether any explanation was provided to the competent authorities. Those questions would need to be resolved through the original filings and responses from the officers concerned.
Shikhar Agrawal holds several important responsibilities in the Rajasthan government. According to the report, his portfolio includes Industries; Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises; Public Sector Undertakings; the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor; and Investment and Non-Resident Rajasthani Affairs. He also serves as chairman of the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (RIICO), chairman and managing director of RajSICO, and Special Officer at the Bhiwadi Integrated Development Authority. He has previously served as Additional Chief Secretary to the Chief Minister.
Prashakha Mathur, in her role as an ADG in Rajasthan Police, is responsible for Planning, Modernisation and Welfare, according to the information cited in the report.
The case highlights broader questions about transparency, asset declarations and public confidence when senior public officials and their families enter into substantial property arrangements. The central issues are whether all required disclosures were made, whether the transactions complied with the applicable rules, and whether the reported purchase and lease arrangements were properly documented.
At this stage, the details presented here are based on the Dainik Bhaskar report. A definitive conclusion about any breach of service rules or other misconduct would require verification of the original registration records, the officers’ complete property declarations and any findings or responses issued by the relevant authorities.
