"HONOUR THOSE WHO LAID DOWN THEIR LIVES": SUPREME COURT SLAMS LAWYER CHALLENGING WAR MEMORIA:

The Supreme Court strongly rebuked a Dehradun-based advocate who had approached the Court seeking to stall the construction of the ‘Sainya Dham’ war memorial in Dehradun district. The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, which expressed sharp disapproval of the petitioner’s conduct and the nature of the challenge raised.

The Court observed that the High Court had dealt with the petitioner leniently by merely dismissing the writ petition, despite the serious nature of the allegations and the lack of bona fides. It noted that a person who demonstrates no respect for war heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the country ought not to be permitted to misuse judicial processes. The Bench further remarked that the petitioner had approached the Court with unclean hands, indicating a lack of sincerity and good faith. While the Court initially indicated its inclination to dismiss the Special Leave Petition with exemplary costs, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition, which was granted. Consequently, the matter was dismissed as withdrawn.

The petitioner, who claimed to be a practicing advocate in Dehradun, had challenged the State Government’s decision to construct the ‘Sainya Dham’ war memorial at Guniyal Gaon in Pargana Pachhuwa Doon. He contended that the land earmarked for the memorial was forest land and therefore could not be diverted for any other use. It was argued on his behalf that once land is recorded as forest land, it cannot be converted for non-forest purposes, and the construction of the memorial was thus impermissible.

During the hearing, the Bench expressed serious doubts about the petitioner’s motives. It suggested that the challenge appeared to be driven by ulterior considerations, including possible attempts to encroach upon or claim the land in question. The Court indicated that such petitions might be filed at the instance of individuals with vested interests and warned that it could initiate proceedings by issuing a show-cause notice to ascertain the true background behind such litigation. It further criticized the petition as being mischievously designed and motivated by improper objectives, including potential land-grabbing interests, and remarked that it was inappropriate to raise objections against a project intended to honour fallen soldiers.

Before the High Court, the State had defended the project through the Advocate General, who relied on a joint survey report conducted by both Revenue and Forest authorities. The report, duly signed by the Forest Range Officer of Raipur Range, the Forester of Rajpur Section, as well as the Revenue Sub-Inspector and Tehsildar of the concerned area, clearly established that the land proposed for the memorial was not classified as forest land. It also recorded that the Forest Department had no objection to the allotment of the land for the construction of the war memorial.

Relying on this material, the High Court had concluded that the petitioner’s claims were legally unsustainable. It held that, in light of the official certification by the Forest authorities, there was no merit in the contention that the land formed part of a forest area. Accordingly, it found no scope for judicial interference and dismissed the writ petition.

Taking note of these findings and the surrounding circumstances, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the challenge and allowed the withdrawal of the petition, effectively bringing the matter to a close.