Point of Law : If a soldier who has protected the frontiers of the country for years whilst in service were to be treated this way in evening of his life, what other defence personnel in service would think of, is left to the wild imagination of the society. [Para 18]

ORDER :

The tone for this judgment can be set by adverting to the following observations made in the Thirty Third Report on ‘Resettlement of Ex-Servicemen’ by the Standing Committee on Defence, Ministry of Defence, (August 2017) Ministry of Defence, Standing Committee on Defence, ‘Resettlement of Ex-Servicemen’, Thirty Third Report, Sixteenth Lok Sabha 2016-2017, Part I, (2017):

“…welfare of Ex-Servicemen (ESM) is of utmost importance and has a direct impact on the serving personnel in view of their dedicated services to the nation under most difficult and inhospitable environment and conditions. In war and peace, on hostile frontiers and family stations from Siachen to Indira Point and from Tawang to Bombay High, their arduous duties for national security require comparable service benefits, if not more. As regards the Ex-Servicemen, considering their problems and genuine grievances, the issue of their welfare also assumes greater significance and concern of the entire country. Most of the service personnel retire at such a stage of life when their financial and domestic responsibilities are maximum...Thus, the issue of...welfare is of utmost importance and necessitates a great deal of initiative not only from the government but also from the entire society on various fronts to resolve the gigantic problems of Ex-Servicemen and dependents and widows of Defence Personnel killed in wars/operations...”

This ignominious case involves a series of long drawn battles waged by the tenants to resist a soldier’s claim for resumption of agricultural land in question. This is a classic instance of how poorly a section of society can treat the very soldiers risk their lives & limbs to protect the frontiers of our country. Petitioner-tenants are before the Writ Court for assailing the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 15.11.2012 (Annexure–E) whereby their appeal wherein a challenge was laid to Tahsildar’s order dated 30.06.2001 (Annexure–C) directing resumption of land in favour of the 4th respondent Ex-Serviceman, has been negatived.

2. After service of notice, the official respondents are represented by learned HCGP and the Ex-Serviceman has entered appearance through the private counsel. Both the HCGP and the private counsel vehemently oppose the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned orders and the reasons on which they have been constructed. The Ex-Serviceman has filed his Statement of Objections resisting the petition. Both the sides have filed a catena of decisions in support of their rival submissions.

3. FACTS IN BRIEF:

(a) The Petitioners ancestor Mr.Umar Beary was a tenant of the subject land that belonged to the ownership of father of Ex-Serviceman, allegedly since 1940 or so. The th respondent having retired from the defence service on 31.07.1993 had applied on 28.06.1994 u/s.15(4) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 seeking resumption of the land in question contending that during his defence service, he had continued the tenancy created by his father. This was preceded by a Notice dated 11.01.1990 calling upon the petitioners to deliver back the subject land on or before 31.03.1992. Another Notice dated 27.09.1993 followed prescribing 31.05.1994 as the cut-off date for giving back the land. Petitioners did not yield to these notices.

(b) In the meanwhile, the Land Tribunal had registered occupancy in favour of the petitioners which came to be set at naught by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.25227/2000 disposed off on 21.07.2000 directing the Tahsildar to decide on the resumption application first and thereafter on the basis of such a decision, whether occupancy should be granted or not, should be left to the Tribunal.

(c) The Tahsildar accordingly had issued notice to both the sides, who were represented by the lawyers; they had also produced huge evidentiary material in support of their rival claim. Having considered the same, in the light of original records that were traced, the Tahsi