Councillor accused of tower encroachment in Narmadapuram:Victim alleges misleading RTI replies, claims authorities ignored pleas for one year

A dispute over the installation of a mobile tower has surfaced in the Gwaltoli area of Narmadapuram district, where a local BJP councillor has been accused of illegally occupying private land to set up the structure. According to the complainant, Dulare Yadav, the councillor encroached upon his privately owned plot and fraudulently facilitated the installation of a mobile tower. Despite possessing original documents, including registry papers and land records (khasra), Yadav said the tower has not been removed. For nearly a year, he has approached the Municipal Council, Tehsil office, Collectorate, public grievance hearings, and even the Chief Minister’s Helpline seeking action. However, he claims no effective steps have been taken. His case was also dismissed by the Tehsil authorities. Allegations of misleading RTI Information According to Yadav, he filed a Right to Information (RTI) application regarding his plot in Ward-33. He alleged that Revenue Inspector (RI) Gajendra Jatav provided misleading information. On May 6, 2025, Jatav reportedly stated in writing that no mobile tower was being constructed on Nazul Sheet No. 30 in Narmadapuram. However, in a letter dated March 21, 2025, addressed to the Tehsildar, the same RI had mentioned that a tower belonging to Indus Company was under construction on Plot No. 3/21 A (area: 35,147.5 sq ft), under an agreement executed by Tarun Chutile. The letter also noted a dispute between Sheet No. 38 (Government Plot No. 2/1) and Sheet No. 30, recommending that construction be halted until the matter was clarified. Complaints from Municipal office to CM helpline According to Yadav, written complaints were submitted to the Narmadapuram Municipal Council on March 12 and August 20, 2025, but no action followed. He also lodged four complaints on the CM Helpline and raised the issue during public grievance hearings on March 11, March 18, and August 19, 2025. While he was assured that an inquiry would be conducted, he claims that no ground-level action was taken. No RTI response even after eight months Yadav sought information about the tower from the Collectorate through RTI. On May 6, 2025, the office replied in writing that no tower existed at the site. Subsequently, on July 7, 2025, Yadav submitted photographs of the tower and sought clarification again. However, he claims that even after eight months, no response has been received. Allegations of missing documents from order sheet A complaint regarding encroachment was filed in the Tehsil office on March 3, 2025. Hearings reportedly continued for nine months. Yadav alleged that on December 5, 2025, Nayab Tehsildar Hanskumar Onkar dismissed the case on the grounds that the applicant was not appearing for hearings. Yadav countered this, claiming that records of hearings after August 5, 2025, were removed from the order sheet. He says he possesses copies of notices issued on August 12 and November 19, contradicting the claim that he was absent. Questions over tower on government land Yadav further questioned why no action was taken if the tower was indeed installed on Sheet No. 38, which officials themselves identified as government land. “If the tower is on government land, how was it allowed in the first place, and why have senior officials not acted despite being aware?” he asked, raising doubts over the Revenue Inspector’s role in the matter. Officials response According to Nayab Tehsildar Hanskumar Onkar, The case came before my court. The complainant was asked to submit proper documents such as registry papers and a site map, which he did not provide. The Revenue Inspector inspected the site and found that the tower stands on government land. There is no question of documents going missing from the file. I will review the case again. Revenue Inspector Gajendra Jatav said, In March 2025, I inspected the site. One tower was under construction. Sheet No. 30 and the adjacent Sheet No. 38 are government land. Due to the dispute, it was not clear initially where the tower was being constructed. After reviewing documents, it became clear that the tower is not on Sheet No. 30 but on Sheet No. 38, which is government land. We will ask the complainant to apply for demarcation. Aman Chutile, son of the councillor, said, The Tehsil has dismissed Dulare Yadav’s case. He could not produce valid land documents or a map. We have received a lease (patta) for the land where the tower is installed. Only a narrow strip of three to four feet remains of his land. Dulare and Puran Yadav themselves are running a shop on encroached land at Station Road, for which I have filed a complaint.