From the Battlefield to the Battle of Files: A Soldier’s Long Journey Home

By Col (Dr.) Ashwani Kumar, MiD, VSM (Retd)

For a soldier, retirement is often associated with returning home and settling into a quieter life. For Captain Kumar, however, the years after military service brought a different kind of challenge—one involving land records, administrative files and a continuing effort to understand the status of property associated with his family.

The Dream of a Uniform

At dawn in Rajki village, Himachal Pradesh, Captain Kumar reflects on a journey that began with a childhood connection to the Armed Forces. His father had served in uniform and encouraged him to follow the same path. Eventually, three generations of the family served in the Armed Forces.

Kumar went on to serve in operational environments and received recognition for his military service. His record includes service during Operation Pawan in Sri Lanka, including participation in the Musalkutti Raid in November 1988, as reflected in archival material. He later served during the Kargil era and was awarded the Vishisht Seva Medal.

During his military career, the challenges were defined by missions, responsibilities and operational duties. After retirement, however, his attention turned to a long-running property-related matter concerning his family.

The Home He Came Back To

For Kumar and his brothers, the Pinjore-Kalka area of Haryana was envisaged as a family home. According to the records referred to in the matter, the three brothers held adjoining residential plots that had been purchased through separate registered sale deeds in 1989.

The family states that while the brothers were serving in different parts of the country, efforts were made to develop the property. Their grievance includes claims concerning boundary works and structures on the plots, which they say were subsequently removed while they were away on service.

After retirement, Kumar expected to devote more time to the property. Instead, he found himself pursuing the matter through representations and official records.

The Question of Section 5-A

One of the central issues raised in Kumar’s continuing grievance concerns the records relating to objections filed under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act.

The official material referred to in the matter records that objections under Section 5-A were considered. An affidavit in the court proceedings states that the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula, considered the objections and recommended that certain land claimed by the Society should not be acquired. It also records that a Joint Site Inspection Committee subsequently inspected the sites on 19 August 2008.

An Administrator, HUDA note dated 21 September 2008 is stated to have recorded a recommendation for exemption involving 22.10 acres, comprising 16.73 acres and 5.37 acres. At the same time, the Government’s Written Statement in CWP No. 15150 of 2010 is referred to as recording that 31.65 acres were released after consideration of the Section 5-A objections.

The difference between the two figures is 9.55 acres. Kumar has therefore sought examination of the original records to establish how the figures were arrived at and whether they can be reconciled.

A Request for Verification of Records

Kumar’s present request is focused on verification of the underlying documents. He has sought examination of the original Section 5-A report and recommendation sheets, along with dispatch, receipt and movement records. He has also requested that the Joint Site Inspection Committee proceedings be compared with the original Section 5-A recommendations and that the 22.10-acre and 31.65-acre figures be reconciled from the original record.

The issue, therefore, is not simply about an allegation. The key question is whether the original administrative records provide a consistent explanation of the figures and decisions recorded at different stages of the process.

From Rifle to File

Military service had required Kumar to work in demanding environments and take responsibility under difficult circumstances. After retirement, his efforts concerning the property have instead involved representations, documents and visits to government offices.

For the family, the matter has remained unresolved for years. Kumar’s position is that the relevant records should be brought together, authenticated and examined so that the status of the property and the administrative decisions can be clearly understood.

A Question That Began During Military Service

Before his deployment with the Indian Peace Keeping Force to Sri Lanka, Kumar had considered the responsibilities that a soldier carries towards his family. The possibility of not returning from an operational deployment naturally raised questions about the security and future of those left behind.

He returned from Sri Lanka, continued his military career and eventually retired. The property-related issue, however, remained part of his post-service concerns.

When the File Becomes the Battlefield

The case also highlights the importance of maintaining complete and consistent administrative records. Senior officers often rely on files and material submitted by subordinate offices, making the accuracy and continuity of those records essential to effective administration.

Kumar’s request is to have the relevant documents authenticated and the differences in the recorded figures explained. If the original records establish an explanation for the difference, that explanation can clarify the matter. If the records reveal an inconsistency, the documents can help identify where it occurred.

A Veteran’s Continuing Request

For Kumar, the issue is no longer a battlefield challenge. It is a matter of obtaining clarity about records relating to property and ensuring that his representations receive due consideration.

The larger question extends beyond one retired officer: how effectively can administrative systems respond when a citizen seeks clarification about decisions recorded in files many years earlier?

Kumar’s request is ultimately for the relevant records to be examined, the figures to be reconciled and the matter to be considered on the basis of documented facts.

Note: The figures and property-related claims discussed above are presented in the context of the records and representations referred to in the matter. The difference between the 22.10-acre and 31.65-acre figures should be established from the original government records before any conclusion is drawn.

“Ashk Machhanvi”