Land allotment: Bombay HC slams revenue authorities for ‘harassing' ex-armyman injured in 1971 war
The Bombay High Court last week pulled up state revenue authorities for 'harassing' an 82-year-old former army personnel, who got injured in 1971 India-Pakistan war over allotment of land in Raigad district under the state policy for wounded soldiers.
The court expressed displeasure over revenue authorities misleading the court that the land could not be allocated being reserved for forest purpose, while the petitioner claimed that the same had certain constructions, including revenue office and a resort on it. The HC said if it is proved that the court was being misled, it would consider initiating contempt proceedings against the revenue officers.
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
34 minutes ago
- The Wire
After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Security After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself Sanjiv Krishan Sood 4 minutes ago While India's armed response to the Pahalgam massacre was swift and strategically effective, the deeper questions about intelligence failures, foreign policy and the sustainability of retaliatory doctrine remain unresolved. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now If Operation Sindoor began as a limited attack on nine locations linked to Pakistan-based terrorist groups, the Pakistani response prompted the Indian defence forces to undertake a number of actions aimed at Pakistan's military establishment. Through precision strikes on militant infrastructure, followed by carefully calibrated aggression, the Indian Air Force and Army degraded key assets while preventing any substantial damage to our own military or civilian infrastructure. The response to the massacre at Pahalgam carried out by terrorists linked to Pakistan was measured but resolute. It was aimed as prompting Islamabad to reassess its state policy of harbouring and sponsoring terror. India's declaration that all acts of terrorism will now be treated as acts of war marks a significant shift in doctrine. That said, six weeks after the Pahalgam tragedy and nearly a month since the cessation of hostilities, several critical questions remain unanswered by both our security and political leadership. The first is whether Operation Sindoor achieved its stated objectives. The Prime Minister, in a Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting, gave the armed forces a free hand to destroy the terror infrastructure in Pakistan. On the nights of May 6th and 7th, nine terrorist camps were reportedly neutralized, and numerous militants killed. But can we truly say the infrastructure has been dismantled? Is the deterrent strong enough to prevent future attacks? The evidence doesn't inspire confidence. Since the 2016 Uri surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot air strikes following Pulwama, Pakistan-based terrorists have continued to strike at Indian targets. Pathankot, Kathua, Udhampur, and other places have seen terror attacks even after high-profile retaliatory actions. Supporting terrorism in India appears to be entrenched in Pakistan's state doctrine. The reported decision of the Pakistani government to offer financial aid to the families of slain terrorists and rebuild destroyed camps signals no intent to step back. More troubling is the international silence. Aside from muted support from Russia, India has struggled to garner vocal backing from major global powers. In contrast, Pakistan received overt support from China and Turkey—both of whom extended diplomatic cover and material support, including drones and modern aircraft used during the brief conflict. Despite a two-week window before striking the terrorist camps, India failed to shape global opinion or present a compelling narrative. This diplomatic vacuum echoes the aftermath of Balakot, when Pakistan successfully projected its version of events internationally. The all-party delegations India dispatched to various countries gained limited traction, mostly among nations with marginal influence on global affairs. This stands in sharp contrast to India's success in 1971 and during the Kargil conflict in 1999, when it managed to effectively justify its actions and rally international opinion. Why the shift? The present government's handling of foreign policy and communication strategy deserves closer scrutiny. That brings us to the ceasefire itself. By May 10th, Indian forces reportedly had the upper hand. Yet it was the US president who first announced the ceasefire, followed by India's own foreign secretary. President Trump's repeated claims of having mediated the ceasefire raise uncomfortable questions. Has India, which long resisted international mediation and stood firmly for bilateralism, allowed itself to be hyphenated with Pakistan once again? While the decision to end hostilities may have been strategically sound, it was an anti-climax for a public whipped into a frenzy by media speculation and political rhetoric. Talk of reclaiming Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and total victory created unrealistic expectations. The actual motivations for the ceasefire remain speculative. It may have been American pressure, given the escalatory risks between two nuclear powers. Or it could have been India's own calculation—that sufficient punishment had been meted out, and further escalation would only risk unnecessary civilian casualties, particularly in areas like Poonch and Rajouri. The safety of civilians in border areas is another glaring concern. While cities were issued alerts, conducted blackouts, and prepared for contingencies, residents living within range of Pakistani small arms and artillery fire were left dangerously exposed. Civilian deaths and property destruction in border towns were substantial. The state must ensure compensation and future protection for these vulnerable populations. The economic implications of conflict also merit discussion. India, now a $4 trillion economy, has far more to lose than Pakistan in a prolonged war. With vast developmental needs and social infrastructure demands, even short conflicts strain national resources. A quick resolution to conflict is, in this sense, in India's own interest. But that only makes the need for a coherent and sustainable response doctrine even more urgent. Our new policy of equating terror attacks with acts of war raises critical strategic questions. What is the threshold for retaliation? Would attacks outside Kashmir trigger the same response as those within? Does the number of casualties factor into the decision? Can every incident justify cross-border action without risking long-term regional stability and international isolation? Notably, India's responses have escalated over time—from Uri to Balakot to Sindoor. Where does this trajectory end, especially with a politically unstable and militarily erratic neighbour? The potential for future Chinese involvement further complicates matters. India's strategic community must urgently engage with these questions. Yet, above all, the most urgent question remains: how was the Pahalgam massacre allowed to happen in the first place? Why did our intelligence agencies fail to detect preparatory activity? How did they miss the apparent increase in satellite imagery demand for Pahalgam in February? Such lapses are inexcusable—they cost 26 innocent lives at Pahalgam, and many more in the conflict that followed. These intelligence failures are not isolated. They follow a disturbing pattern seen in Pulwama, Pathankot, Udhampur, Kathua, Mumbai, and other attacks. Yet accountability remains elusive. Why was there no security detail at such a high-profile tourist site? Who in the chain of command failed—the SP, DIG, IG, or DG? Are our forces overly fixated on protecting politicians and VIPs at the cost of ordinary citizens? Some may argue that providing security everywhere is impractical. But complete absence of police presence at a known tourist destination is indefensible. Did complacency set in after the abrogation of Article 370 and the successful state elections, leading officials to believe that the threat had passed? And finally, why do these tragedies keep recurring? Has any impartial inquiry been conducted into past lapses? Have recommendations been implemented? The public has a right to know whether lessons are being learned, or merely filed away. These questions may sound rhetorical. But unless they are asked, addressed, and acted upon, we risk reliving the same tragedy. The lives lost at Pahalgam demand more than patriotic fervour and retaliatory strikes. They demand introspection, accountability, and a strategy that looks beyond the immediate headlines. Sanjiv Krishan Sood was additional director general of the BSF. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Modi's Search for Global Solidarity Rings Hollow Amid Rising Domestic Intolerance in India Eight Days, Nine Rallies, Six States: Tracking PM Modi and Operation Sindoor as Campaign Ammunition Gandhi's and Modi's Reflections on 'Sindoor' Are Poles Apart Modi Says 'Not Blood, Hot Sindoor' Flows In His Veins In First Public Address Since Op Sindoor Why a Special Session of the Parliament is Critical to Discuss the Disclosure Made by CDS Chauhan 'Trade Offer Averted India-Pakistan War': Trump Administration Tells US Court From Flowers to Sarees, A Story of PM Modi's Communication Imagery Post-Operation Sindoor By Calling For the Boycott of Foreign Goods, Modi Contradicts Himself Facing Pushback, Derision and Anger, BJP Says News of Sindoor Distribution Plans 'Fake' View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
News18
36 minutes ago
- News18
Sheikh Hasina's Party Slams 'Fascist' Yunus After Poll Announcement: 'Serves Foreign Interests'
Last Updated: Sheikh Hasina's banned Awami League accused Muhammad Yunus of spreading lies to cover up his failures and accused his government of serving foreign interests. Ousted Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's Awami League criticised Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus, accusing him of spreading lies and misinformation during his address to the nation, where he announced that Bangladesh's general elections will be held in April 2026. After immense pressure from the Army and political parties, Yunus said the next national election will be held in the first half of April 2026. He assured that his government is taking necessary steps to ensure a proper election environment, emphasising that flawed elections have been the main cause of major national crises in Bangladesh. 'We want an election that honours the sacrifices of the martyrs. One with the highest number of voters, candidates, and parties participating. Let this be remembered as the freest and fairest election the nation has seen," he said. The Awami League strongly condemned his address, saying Yunus was trying to cover up his failures by blaming the previous Awami League government and creating a false narrative of crisis. 'No Public Mandate, Economy In Ruins' Hasina's party, which was banned from contesting the elections after the former PM was ousted in student-led protests last year, said Bangladesh's economy has deteriorated under Yunus's interim regime, with industries being shut down, investment stalled and unemployment rising. It accused the interim government of rampant corruption and tax favouritism, including a tax waiver of Tk 666 crore for Yunus himself and tax exemption for Grameen Bank. 'In the name of development, they will hand over important national assets and infrastructure to serve foreign interests," it said. Furthermore, the Awami League claimed Yunus' government lacked democratic legitimacy and served foreign interests rather than those of the people of Bangladesh. It warned that several interim government members had foreign passports and would leave the country after causing irreversible damage. 'To protect our future, we must act now. There is no alternative to a united struggle by all patriots to save our country from the clutches of these vultures. If we can all stay united and continue this fight, we will, Inshallah, be able to defeat this evil, anti-national force," it said. What Did Yunus Say In His Speech? Yunus highlighted the immense public and political interest in Bangladesh's next national election, emphasising the government's role in institutional reform to prevent future crises. 'Hold your candidates and political parties accountable, demand firm pledges that the agreed-upon reforms will be passed in the very first session of the new parliament, without compromise. Demand that they never bargain away the country's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, or national dignity to any foreign power," he was quoted as saying by Dhaka Tribune. 'Ask them to lead with honesty and transparency, and to reject all forms of corruption, favoritism, extortion, syndicates, and violence," he added, promising to build a 'New Bangladesh'. First Published: June 07, 2025, 07:07 IST
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Sheikh Hasina's Party Slams 'Fascist' Yunus After Poll Announcement: 'Serve Foreign Interests'
Last Updated: Sheikh Hasina's banned Awami League accused Muhammad Yunus of spreading lies to cover up his failures and accused his government of serving foreign interests. Ousted Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's Awami League criticised Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus, accusing him of spreading lies and misinformation during his address to the nation, where he announced that Bangladesh's general elections will be held in April 2026. After immense pressure from the Army and political parties, Yunus said the next national election will be held in the first half of April 2026. He assured that his government is taking necessary steps to ensure a proper election environment, emphasising that flawed elections have been the main cause of major national crises in Bangladesh. 'We want an election that honours the sacrifices of the martyrs. One with the highest number of voters, candidates, and parties participating. Let this be remembered as the freest and fairest election the nation has seen," he said. The Awami League strongly condemned his address, saying Yunus was trying to cover up his failures by blaming the previous Awami League government and creating a false narrative of crisis. 'No Public Mandate, Economy In Ruins' Hasina's party, which was banned from contesting the elections after the former PM was ousted in student-led protests last year, said Bangladesh's economy has deteriorated under Yunus's interim regime, with industries being shut down, investment stalled and unemployment rising. It accused the interim government of rampant corruption and tax favouritism, including a tax waiver of Tk 666 crore for Yunus himself and tax exemption for Grameen Bank. 'In the name of development, they will hand over important national assets and infrastructure to serve foreign interests," it said. Furthermore, the Awami League claimed Yunus' government lacked democratic legitimacy and served foreign interests rather than those of the people of Bangladesh. It warned that several interim government members had foreign passports and would leave the country after causing irreversible damage. 'To protect our future, we must act now. There is no alternative to a united struggle by all patriots to save our country from the clutches of these vultures. If we can all stay united and continue this fight, we will, Inshallah, be able to defeat this evil, anti-national force," it said. What Did Yunus Say In His Speech? Yunus highlighted the immense public and political interest in Bangladesh's next national election, emphasising the government's role in institutional reform to prevent future crises. 'Hold your candidates and political parties accountable, demand firm pledges that the agreed-upon reforms will be passed in the very first session of the new parliament, without compromise. Demand that they never bargain away the country's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, or national dignity to any foreign power," he was quoted as saying by Dhaka Tribune. 'Ask them to lead with honesty and transparency, and to reject all forms of corruption, favoritism, extortion, syndicates, and violence," he added, promising to build a 'New Bangladesh'. About the Author Aveek Banerjee Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : bangladesh Muhammad Yunus Sheikh Hasina First Published:
