Judgment A.S. Oka, J. 1. Notice for final disposal was issued on 12th August 2013. The petitioner was serving with the India Army. He retired as a Lieutenant Colonel. The petitioner actively participated in India Pakistan conflict of 1971. Exhibit-A to the petition is the certificate issued by the Head Quarter of the Southern Command of the Army which records that the petitioner was wounded due to enemy gun shot on River Padma at Kustia (now in Bangladesh), on 12th December 1970 and was granted 'Wound Medal' vide order dated 21st February 1974. 2. While we are finally deciding this petition, we must note here that by order dated 21st April 2013 a show cause notice was issued to the Principal Secretary of the Revenue and Forests Department calling upon him to remain present in the Court. 3. It will be necessary to consider the Government Resolution (for short `GR') dated 30th December 1971. Recitals in the GR records that in the context of the recent conflict with Pakistan, the Government of Maharashtra has reviewed the present policy of the grant of Government lands for cultivation to the members of the Armed Forces and their families. After considering the outstanding contribution of the members of the Armed Forces in the Defence of the nation, the State of Maharashtra took a policy decision to grant lands for cultivation as well as residential purposes in the rural area. The GR dated 30th December 1971 provides that the policy will be applicable to the family members of the members of Armed Forces who died in the India-Pakistan conflict. The Policy was also made applicable to such Armed Forces personnel who have been wounded, disabled or have received Awards for gallantry in the India-Pakistan conflict of 1971. As stated earlier, the said Resolution provides for allotment of Government lands for cultivation as well as for residential purposes. The said GR dated 30th December 1971 underwent a modification by another GR dated 2nd January 1973. The entitlement of those who have received Awards for Gallantry in the India-Pakistan conflict of 1971 under the GR dated 30th December 1971 was not withdrawn or disturbed by the said modification. It was clarified that those who were wounded will be considered for the grant of the benefit provided they have a certificate showing 50% or more disability. 4. The entitlement of those who have received Awards for Gallantry in the India-Pakistan conflict of 1971 under the GR dated 30th December 1971 was not withdrawn or disturbed by the said modification. It was clarified that those who were wounded will be considered for the grant of the benefit provided they have a certificate showing 50% or more disability. 4. The petition is initially filed for implementation of what is stated in the letter dated 24th December 2012 addressed to the petitioner by the District Collector by which he was called upon to give his preferences in relation to the plots which were described in the said letter. There was also a prayer made for allotment of the land for agriculture. A very detailed order was passed by this Court on 21st December 2013. Prior to that order, by the order dated 11th November 2013, the State Government was directed to take appropriate decision on the application made by the petitioner for allotment of land. By the order dated 23rd December 2013, the Collector was directed to pass an appropriate order of the allotment of a suitable plot to the petitioner. In the order dated 18th March 2013, non compliance with the earlier order was noted and that is how on 21st April 2013, the Principal Secretary was directed to remain present. 5. On 30th April 2013, Shri Swadheen Kshatriya, the then Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, filed an affidavit. It will be necessary to make a reference to paragraph 6 of the said affidavit which reads thus: “6. In the background aforesaid, I say that while examining the record furnished before me, I found that on 20.1.1973 in a draw, by the Collector, Pune, petitioner was proposed to be allotted a residential plot No.125 at Vadgaon Sheri, Pune. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit `6' is a copy of the list proposed allottees. The name of the petitioner, capt. V.M. Karve appears at Sr. No.2 under the category Wounded. However, it appears from the record that the petitioner, Shri V.M. Karve has not produced before the authorities 50% or more disability certificate issued by the Military Hospital. Hence, the proposed allotment as per the draw was cancelled and the said plot was subsequently made available for the further draws. V.M. Karve appears at Sr. No.2 under the category Wounded. However, it appears from the record that the petitioner, Shri V.M. Karve has not produced before the authorities 50% or more disability certificate issued by the Military Hospital. Hence, the proposed allotment as per the draw was cancelled and the said plot was subsequently made available for the further draws. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “7” is a copy of the list of the defence personnel, whose proposed allotment was cancelled.” 6. Thus, the stand taken by Shri Kshatriya in his affidavit is that as the petitioner had not produced a certificate showing disability of 50% or more, he was disentitled to the benefits under the GR dated 30th December 1971. On 6th May 2014, a letter dated 5th May 2014 addressed by the Revenue and Forest Department to the District Collector was placed on record. 7. Thereafter, under the orders of this Court, the petitioner was permitted to amend the petition seeking various reliefs. An additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 11th December 2014 in which he invited the attention of the Court to the fact that he is a recipient of the Wound Medal which is subsequently designated as 'Parakram Padak'. By the said additional affidavit, the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the Exhibit-6 to the said affidavit of Shri Kshatriya which shows that those Army Personnel who received wound medal were also granted plots. In the said additional affidavit, reliance was placed on the notification issued by the Hon'ble the President of India recording the order of Precedence of wearing various Medals and Decorations. It was pointed out that 'Parakram Padak' finds a place in the said notification, but the notification does not consider “Mention in a Despatch” as a medal or Decoration. The contention raised in the amendment is that the petitioner being a recipient of “Parakram Padak” is a recipient of “Gallantry Award” and therefore, GR dated 30th December 1973 as modified is applicable to the petitioner. 8. It will be necessary to make a reference to the order dated 12th March 2015 passed by this Court. Paragraphs 4 to 8 of the said order reads thus: “4. 8. It will be necessary to make a reference to the order dated 12th March 2015 passed by this Court. Paragraphs 4 to 8 of the said order reads thus: “4. Thereafter, the Petitioner has raised a contention that he was a recipient of “Wound Medal” or “Parakram Padak” on account of Indo-Pak Conflict of 1971 and, therefore, he will fall in the category of those who have received the awards for gallantry in 1971 War. The contention is that in view of the award of said medal, he will fall in the category of the members of Arm Forces who have received the award for gallantry in the Indo-Pak Conflict of 1971. Reliance was placed on a certificate annexed at Exhibit-A to the Petition, which is a “War Wound” Certificate issued by the Head Quarters of Southern Command, Poona, on 10th November 2005. The said certificate reads thus: “WAR WOUND” CERTIFICATE IC-32337W (then SS-23720N) Lt Col (then Capt) VM Karve of HQ Southern Command, Pune – 01 was wounded due to enemy gun shot on Hardings Bridge on river Padma at Kustia (Now in Bangladesh) on 12 Dec 1971 and was granted wound medal vide AHQ DO Pt II No.1 GR/MEDAL/4/1/74 dt 21 Feb 1974.” 5. It appears that the Collector, Pune, sought a clarification from the Southern Command Head Quarter, about the nature of the wound medal. The learned AGP has placed on record a photocopy of the letter dated 17th February 2015 issued by Shri M.K. Sirohi, Colonel, Dir, CW-2 for Adjutant General, HQ of MOD (Army). The said letter is taken on record and marked “B-1” for identification. The clarification issued by the Integrated HQ of MOD (Army) reads thus: “CLARIFICATION: AWARDS 1. Refer your Letter No.PRH/kavi/230/2015 dt 31 Jan 2015. 2. Mention-in-Despatches is not a Presidential award. It is a recognition for distinguished or meritorious service in operational areas and acts of gallantry which are not of a sufficiently high order to warrant Gallantry awards. It is evident from the notification, that idea behind warrant of M-in-D is to reward such acts, which do not merit award of gallantry medal. To recog such gallantry and to distinguish it from other gallantry awards, the awardee is auth to wear a lotus leaf emblem on the campaign medal. 3. It is evident from the notification, that idea behind warrant of M-in-D is to reward such acts, which do not merit award of gallantry medal. To recog such gallantry and to distinguish it from other gallantry awards, the awardee is auth to wear a lotus leaf emblem on the campaign medal. 3. Wound Medal (renamed as Parakram Padak) is Presidential award and listed at Ser No.29 in the Precedence of awards vide President Sectt Notification No 106/Pers-2004 dt 19 Jul 2004 (copy enclosed). Parakram Padak is awarded to the personnel who sustained/sustain wounds as a result of direct enemy action in any type of operations or counterinsurgency operations.” 6. Thus, the clarification is that the “wound medal” which has been renamed as 'Parakram Padak' is a Presidential award which is listed at Sr.No.29 in the Order of Precedence of the Presidential Awards. It will be necessary to make a reference to the annexures to the affidavit of Shri Kshatriya. The Exhibits-6 and 7 show that some of the armed forces personnel who received “Mention in Dispatches” were also included in the list of those who were considered as eligible for the allotment of plots. Now the letter dated 17th February 2015 clarifies that “Mention-in-Despatches” is not a Presidential award. 7. Nevertheless, now it is borne out from the record that the Petitioner was a recipient of wound medal on 21st February 1974 on account of his participation in the Indo-Pak Conflict of 1971 and that the “wound medal” has been renamed as “Parakram Padak” is a Presidential award. The certificate at Exhibit-A to the Petition also proves that the Petitioner was a wounded due to enemy gun shot in Bangladesh in the war of the year 1971. 8. On conjoint reading of the certificate at Exhibit-A to the Petition and the clarification (marked as “B'1”) issued on 17th February 2015 by the Army, it appears to us that the Petitioner was a recipient of a gallantry award. Therefore, prima facie, the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Government Resolutions. The learned AGP states that now a clarification dated 17th February 2015 issued by the Army has been forwarded to the Collector (Revenue Branch), Pune-1 to take appropriate decision.” 9. Therefore, prima facie, the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Government Resolutions. The learned AGP states that now a clarification dated 17th February 2015 issued by the Army has been forwarded to the Collector (Revenue Branch), Pune-1 to take appropriate decision.” 9. In paragraph 9, this Court issued a direction to the State Government to take a final decision on the claim of the petitioner within a period of one month by recording that this Court was dealing with the petition filed by the petitioner who is a recipient of the Parakram Padak on account of participation in the War of 1971. 10. Today, an affidavit of compliance has been filed by Shri Balasaheb Kisan Raskar, the Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Forests Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, which is affirmed on 20th April 2015. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit, he has sought to make a distinction between “Gallantry” Award and “Parakram Padak”. In paragraph 3 of the said affidavit, he has stated thus: “3. I say that in this view of the matter, the State Government is of the view that `Wound Medal' cannot be equated with a Gallantry Award. Moreover, even though, it is submitted that the petitioner was wounded in Indo-Pak conflict in the year 1971, the petitioner has not sustained disability of 50% or more as he has produced a certificate of 30% disability issued by Military Hospital. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of benefits as per the Government Resolution dated 30.12.1971 as well as the Government Resolution dated 2.3.1973 and hence the State Government has taken a decision not to extend petitioner the benefit of concessional grant.” 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted “Wound Medal” in the year 1974 which has been admittedly re-designated as “Parakram Padak”. Shri Raskar is personally present in the Court. Learned AGP states that Shri Raskar was authorised by the State Government to take a final decision in terms of directions of this Court. Shri Raskar states that “Parakram Padak” is different from a “Gallantry award”. We made a query to Shri Raskar through the learned AGP as to which awards can be classified as “Gallantry awards” in terms of the GR dated 30th December 1973. This query was made in the context of the fact that a list of Presidential Medals is placed on record. We made a query to Shri Raskar through the learned AGP as to which awards can be classified as “Gallantry awards” in terms of the GR dated 30th December 1973. This query was made in the context of the fact that a list of Presidential Medals is placed on record. We must record here that the learned AGP states that Shri Raskar has no answer to the query made by the Court. 12. The stand taken in the affidavit is that the Parakram Padak is not a “Gallantry award” for the purposes of GR dated 30th December 1973. Shri Raskar has taken this stand without understanding the meaning of “Gallantry award”. 13. This Court has already quoted in one of the earlier orders, Exhibit-A to the petition which shows that the petitioner received Parakram Padak. Exhibit-A is the certificate which records that the petitioner was wounded due to gun shot in the neck received from the enemy in Bangladesh War. 14. We fail to understand as to how the State Government can come out with a case that the petitioner is disentitled to the benefit under the GR dated 30th December 1973. The GR provides that those Army Personnel who have received Gallantry awards in the recent Indo-Pak conflict shall be eligible for grant of benefit of allotment of plots. We are shocked to note that the State Government has left such an important decision to be taken to a Deputy Secretary who is not able to tell the Court as to what is the concept of “Gallantry Award” which is covered by the said G.R. We are shocked to note that the Deputy Secretary has sought to make a distinction between a “Gallantry award” and a “Parakram Padak”. In the well known Marathi English Dictionary of Prof. M.K. Deshpande firstly published in the year 1937, the meaning assigned to the word “Parakram” is “Valour”. In many Hindi into English Dictionaries, the English meaning of the Hindi word “Parakram” is given as “Gallantry or Valour”. The Deputy Secretary has made no effort to understand the meaning of the word “Parakram” and was bold enough to state that “Parakram” is different from “Gallantry”. We see no difference between the two. 15. In many Hindi into English Dictionaries, the English meaning of the Hindi word “Parakram” is given as “Gallantry or Valour”. The Deputy Secretary has made no effort to understand the meaning of the word “Parakram” and was bold enough to state that “Parakram” is different from “Gallantry”. We see no difference between the two. 15. In view of the clarification issued by the Army Head Quarters by letter dated 17th February 2015 and on the basis of an admitted position that the petitioner was granted “Parakram Padak” (which a Presidential Award) on account of his performance in the India-Pakistan war of 1971, we have no manner of doubt that the decision taken by the Deputy Secretary of the State Government is completely erroneous. In fact the decision is perverse. It overlooks the very object of issuing the Government Resolution. The approach of the Government is insensitive. Perhaps every one has forgotten that we owe so much to war heroes of 1971 war. 16. This petition is pending in this Court from the year 2013. Only after a notice was issued to the Principal Secretary to the Revenue and Forests Department, the State Government took a decision to withdraw the benefit which was granted to him earlier. When the State Government was directed to take appropriate decision in the light of the clarification dated 17th February 2015 issued by the Army, the State Government left the matter of decision making to a Deputy Secretary who admittedly is not able to tell as to what is the concept of a “Gallantry Award” for the purposes of aforesaid GR. He has merely stated in the affidavit that the Parakram Padak received by the petitioner is not a Gallantry Award. For the reasons recorded earlier, the Petitioner is eligible to all the benefits under the GR dated 30th December 1971. 17. Considering the fact that we are dealing with the case of an Army Personnel who is wounded in the war in Bangladesh in the year 1971, the State Government will have to be ordered to pay costs of this petition to the petitioner. The amount of costs is quantified at Rs.50,000/-. 18. 17. Considering the fact that we are dealing with the case of an Army Personnel who is wounded in the war in Bangladesh in the year 1971, the State Government will have to be ordered to pay costs of this petition to the petitioner. The amount of costs is quantified at Rs.50,000/-. 18. Accordingly, we pass the following order: (I) We direct the State of Maharashtra to grant all the benefits under the GR dated 30th December 1971 as modified by the GR dated 2nd January 1973 by allotting plots to him both for agricultural as well as residential use. The allotment shall be free of occupancy price; (II) The process of allotment shall be completed by placing the petitioner in possession of the allotted plots on or before 31st August 2015; (III) We direct the State Government to pay costs to the petitioner quantified at Rs.50,000/-. The costs shall be paid on or before 30th June 2015; (IV) Rule is made absolute on above terms.