The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed grave concern over alleged irregularities in the allotment of defence lands to private entities, suggesting the formation of an independent probe team to examine the matter thoroughly.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, while hearing a 2014 PIL filed by NGO Common Cause, flagged widespread encroachments and misuse of defence lands, particularly in cantonment areas. The Court hinted at collusion between influential individuals, defence estate officers, and even the judiciary in enabling such transactions.
“We don’t want to say much today as it would be premature, but in one cantonment, palatial bungalows and sprawling open spaces running into acres have been leased for 99 years or indefinitely,” Justice Kant observed. He noted the presence of shopping complexes and high-value properties granted on lease in what were meant to be secure military zones.
Justice Kant further remarked, “This is not a mere administrative lapse. If it is not a racket, then it is sheer negligence on the part of higher authorities, who may have been too preoccupied to grasp the magnitude of the situation.”
The Court criticized delays in appeal processes, stating that in some matters, appeals had been filed years later, seemingly to ensure dismissal on technical grounds. “A friendly match was played in the courts,” Justice Kant added, alleging that some subordinate courts issued dubious declarations that certain lands were free from encumbrances and vested in private parties.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing Common Cause, pointed out that the Centre’s 2017 affidavit had admitted to encroachments but contained contradictory figures. He said the government sought to justify private allotments by claiming these facilities served the daily needs of military personnel — an explanation the bench found unconvincing.
The Court instructed Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, to submit an updated status report aligned with the Court’s 2017 directions on the automation of land records. Bhati acknowledged that the earlier affidavit was outdated and offered to file a revised version.
To ensure an impartial probe, the bench proposed constituting a team that includes a representative from the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), a legal expert, a land revenue officer, and a Ministry of Defence official — excluding current defence estate officers. The team could also engage local law officers as needed, especially in cantonments where vernacular language issues arise.
“This is a very serious issue,” the bench warned. “Once land is granted to private entities, it’s no longer in your control how it is transferred. Various unknown risks are involved.”
The Court has scheduled the next hearing after receiving the updated affidavit and government response on the proposed composition of the investigative team.
