The Gujarat High Court Thursday issued notice to the state government and other respondents in a petition moved by a retired army personnel, seeking direction against the “inaction” of the state authorities and Ahmedabad district administration in granting actual possession of a land in Bavla taluka’s Bhamsara village as per a 2006 government policy to grant “emolument” to Army personnel.
The court held that despite the delay on part of the petitioner in not taking adequate steps to have the order executed, the “onus would be on the officers” to execute Dholka Deputy Collector’s order.
The petitioners, retired army man Harshadray Acharya, 64, and his wife Pravina, 62, moved the Gujarat High Court against the state government, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dholka in Ahmedabad and District Inspector of Land Records (DILR), Mamlatdar of Bavla and Talati (revenue officer)-cum-mantri of Bhamsara village. The petitioners challenged “the inaction of authorities”, in carrying out the admeasurement of a land in Bhamsara village of Ahmedabad district’s Bavla taluka to effect the allotment of actual possession to the petitioner, as an “emolument to his continuous and committed service rendered into the Indian Army” as per the 2006 policy.
The petition, filed through Advocate Utkarsh Dave, states that Harshadray Acharya had joined the Indian Army as a sepoy in 1979 until 1993. In 2006, the petitioner was granted land considering the “prevalent government policy, contemplating grant of surplus land as an emolument to individuals retiring from the Indian Army… who have devoted their lives for national interest”. The petition states that Acharya had “immediately remitted the requisite fees necessary for carrying out the admeasurement of the land…and accordingly, names of the petitioners came to be entered into the 7/12 land records”. However, for a substantial period of time, no actions were taken by the respondent authorities.
In 2010, the petitioner began communication with the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Bavla) to undertake the further process.
Contending that the communications to the SDM were only “mechanically forwarded”, the petition states that in 2012, a PIL seeking intervention against the inaction of the state government in carrying out the measurement and granting actual possession of lands to the grantees was filed by an MLA before the Gujarat High Court. “As a consequence, to reports called by the HC in the PIL, the petitioner was also approached by (respondent) authorities and his signature was obtained on the acceptance letter of the land,” Dave states.
However, the petitioner was in for a surprise when he later discovered that the land in question “could not be found”. The petition states, “Indeed the respondents approached the village Bhamsara for carrying out the admeasurement and astonishingly, could not trace the land…and so the proceedings came to be dropped in the incomplete state. Thereafter, the petitioner continued pursuit, meeting the authorities and making representations until 2023… However, no admeasurement has taken place nor are the petitioners granted actual possession of the land or certified copies, map, possession receipt and so on…”
Story continues below this ad
On Thursday, the High Court Justice Nikhil Kariel heard the submissions of the petitioners as well as AGP Kanv Antani, who appeared for the state. Antani raised “preliminary objection as regards the petition being unduly delayed”.
The court order said, “…yet, to this Court considering that the policy in question being benevolent in nature, the onus would not be on the petitioner to have come before this Court to ensure implementation of the order. Prima facie it would appear to this Court that an order passed by the Deputy Collector, Dholka not being implemented, the onus would be on the officers i.e. the officers who have held the post of Collectors as well as Deputy Collectors to compensate the present petitioners as regards the approximate cost of the land as it would stand today, if the State is taking up such an objection.”
The court notice to the respondents stated, “The state, through a responsible senior officer, shall file a reply as to whether the state would be contesting the aspect of delay or the state would be willing to to fix responsibility of implementation of an order passed by an officer of the State in favour of a person who had served the armed forces of the country.” The matter will be heard on July 7.