Sign in

Names of encroachers on defence cantonment lands in Pune deleted

Defence Minister for state Ajay Bhatt informed the Rajya Sabha that it has deleted the name of encroachers on defence lands in the cantonment area and the respective boards have revised the rolls to the effect in accordance with the orders of the Supreme Court

Updated on: Mar 22, 2023, 21:08:30 IST
Share
Share via
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • whatsapp
Copy link
  • copy link

Defence Minister for state Ajay Bhatt informed the Rajya Sabha that it has deleted the name of encroachers on defence lands in the cantonment area and the respective boards have revised the rolls to the effect in accordance with the orders of the Supreme Court.

Defence Minister for state Ajay Bhatt informed the Rajya Sabha that it has deleted the name of encroachers on defence lands in the cantonment area (REPRESENTATIVE IMAGE)
Defence Minister for state Ajay Bhatt informed the Rajya Sabha that it has deleted the name of encroachers on defence lands in the cantonment area (REPRESENTATIVE IMAGE)

Bhatt provided this information in a written reply to Santhosh Kumar P in Rajya Sabha on Monday.

According to a release issued by the Ministry of Defence, Cantonment Boards revised the electoral rolls by deleting the names of encroachers on defence land in accordance with the Supreme Court’s order dated September 27, 2016, in the Civil Appeal of 2016 arising out of SLP of 2016 titled Cantonment Board Panchmarhi Vs Gopal Das Kabra and Ors.

According to sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Cantonment Act, 2006, every person who is not less than eighteen years of age on the date fixed by the Central Government on this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette and who has resided in the Cantonment for a period of not less than six months immediately preceding the qualifying date shall, if not otherwise disqualified, be entitled to be enrolled as an elector.

Subsection (2) of Section 28 of the Act lists the disqualifications for being enrolled as an elector. It also stated that an additional disqualification stems from a Supreme Court order dated September 27, 2016.