15-05-2025
HC deprecates revenue authorities for ‘harassing' 1971 war veteran
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has strongly criticised the Maharashtra revenue department for harassing an 82-year-old retired Army Naik who was wounded in the 1971 India-Pakistan war, over the delayed allotment of land promised to him more than five decades ago.
A division bench of justices Girish S Kulkarni and Advait M Sethna, hearing a plea filed by Vithoba Maruti Parbalkar, observed that the revenue authorities had not only failed to treat the decorated war veteran fairly but also appeared to have misled the court regarding the status of alternate land being offered to him.
'It is shocking when Revenue Officers claim they are unaware of the status of land that houses their own office,' the bench remarked in an order dated May 9, warning that if the court finds it was deliberately misled, it would consider initiating contempt proceedings against the officials concerned.
Parbalkar, represented by advocates Avinash Fatangare and Archana Shelar, was injured during shelling on December 12, 1971, while serving as a Naik in the Indian Army. In recognition of his service, the state government issued a resolution in 1971 directing that land be allotted to injured or disabled soldiers for cultivation or residential use. In 1972, the Army sent a letter to Raigad revenue authorities asking for compliance.
In 1973, Parbalkar was given possession of a plot in Rele village, Mangaon taluka. However, in 2016, during a boundary measurement request, officials informed him he had been mistakenly allotted a different parcel, which had since been encroached upon. A probe was launched, but due to opposition from villagers, the encroachments could not be cleared. Authorities then offered him alternate land, which also fell through.
In 2020, a second plot proposed as an alternative was denied on the grounds that it was reserved for development. On April 21 this year, officials told the court that another piece of land in Sale village was unavailable as it was classified as forest land.
However, Parbalkar submitted an affidavit stating the land in question had several existing structures, including a fully functioning Talathi office and a resort, contradicting the claim that it was forested.
'The authorities are presenting a totally false picture for extraneous reasons,' the court observed. 'If this land were truly forest land, such constructions could not exist. It is incumbent upon the state to remove or demolish such illegal structures instead of denying land to a war veteran.'
The bench noted that it was 'being taken for a ride' and that the treatment meted out to the petitioner was 'glaring and unfair.' It demanded an explanation from the revenue department and posted the matter for further hearing on June 10.
