High Court raps Punjab for gross apathy, indifference towards martyr’s family, orders Rs 5 lakh relief

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 8

Rapping the state of Punjab for gross apathy and indifference towards the family of a soldier who “laid his life defending the country’s borders from the onslaught of enemy forces”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the payment of Rs 5 lakh to his widow as a compensatory measure facing “indolence and lethargy”.

The direction came after the Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari took note of the fact that petitioner-widow Balwant Kaur was not assigned “revenue rasta” for enabling her to fully utilise the land allotted to her for honouring the exhibition of gallantry by Havaldar Kehar Singh. The allotment was rendered completely purposeless as she was unable to use the land allotted since 2009.

Going into the background of the matter, the Bench observed that 10 acres was initially allotted to her in Ludhiana district before its symbolic possession was delivered in May 2009. But it subsequently emerged that two acres were under forest cover. The petitioner again was allotted land in September 2011 following court directions, but not assigned the revenue rasta.

The Bench took note of the state counsel’s submission that a “rasta” had now been allotted to the petitioner, but added that it was belated. Besides, it was a result of her moving the court. Given the valiant services rendered to the nation by her husband, the authorities concerned were required to take prompt action for the purpose, rather than being indolent and apathetic towards the petitioner’s requirements.

The Bench added the valiant services of an able soldier of the Indian Army were required to be “not dealt with gross apathy and indifference”. The honour was required to be bestowed upon his surviving family with “utmost promptitude”.

The Bench asserted: “The requirement of prompt honour becoming bestowed upon the surviving members of a martyr or to a soldier who laid his life fighting for the country is completely amiss. Therefore, such evident indifference and indolence on the part of the respondents concerned is required to be deprecated in the strongest terms”.

The Bench added compelling the petitioner to move the court repeatedly for ensuring that the honour bestowed upon the martyr’s surviving family was utilized to its full potential was completely unnecessary. She was needlessly and repeatedly dragged into litigation. As such, directions to monetarily recompense the petitioner was necessary.