Land allotment: Bombay HC slams revenue authorities for ‘harassing’ ex-armyman injured in 1971 war

A division bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Advait M Sethna on May 9 passed an order on plea by Vithoba Maruti Parbalkar, former Army official argued through advocates Avinash Fatangare and Archana Shelar. It noted that petitioner is “being harassed by the respondent revenue authorities in allotment of an alternate land”.

Parbalkar, who was a “Naik” in the army, got injured in shelling during India-Pakistan operations on December 12, 1971.

In 1972, Army authority issued a letter to Raigad district revenue authorities to allot land to the petitioner as per state revenue department Government Resolution (GR) of 1971 for allotment of land for cultivation and residential purposes for wounded or disabled soldiers.

A year later, he was given possession of a piece of land in Rele village in Mangaon Taluka. However, in 2016, when he applied for its measurement to fix the boundaries, the petitioner was told that he was actually allotted an adjacent land and the same had encroachments on it, after which the probe was initiated.

The encroachments could not be removed as villagers opposed it, prompting authorities to offer an alternate land to the petitioner. The plea said the alternate land too was not allotted as the local body in 2020 claimed the same was reserved for development purpose.

On April 21, the state authorities informed HC that another alternate land in Sale village could not be allotted as it was reserved for forest.

On May 9, the HC noted that it was “being misled and/or taken to a ride at the hands of the revenue officers in Raigad district”.

“In fact, we are of the clear opinion that the Revenue Officers have not meted out a fair treatment to the senior citizen, who has devoted his life for the country, and who was serving in the Army,” the bench noted.

The bench said it was “more glaring” from the petitioner’s affidavit that the survey number of the concerned land in Sale village had several properties, including full-fledged Talathi office and some resort and the same was “contrary” to authorities’ stand of it being forest land.

“Once such substantial development is seen and according to the petitioner, for such reason the land can never be categorised as a forest land,” HC noted, adding that “totally false picture” was being presented to it by authorities for “extraneous” reasons.

The HC said authorities should not suppress details and added, “If it was to be forest land, such construction could not have been undertaken and it was incumbent that all such structures be removed/demolished.”

“In fact it is shocking when the Revenue Officers claim that they are not aware as to what is the status of the land on such developments, as also, they do not know their own Talathi’s office, which they intend to verify,” the bench observed.

“In the event, if it is found that the Court is being misled, we are of the clear opinion that this would be a fit case for contempt proceedings to be initiated and an appropriate action would be required to be taken against the concerned Revenue Officers, in whatever position they stand,” the HC added.

Seeking explanation from revenue authorities, HC posted the matter to June 10.