Karnataka High Court
Satish Thombare S/O Prabhakar Thombare vs The Administrative Commandant on 14 October, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
R
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 104128 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 103397 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
IN WP NO.104128 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SATISH THOMBARE
S/O PRABHAKAR THOMBARE
AGE: 60 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
2. ASHOK DHURI S/O LAXMAN DHURI
AGE: 35 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 3. BHIKAJI NAIK S/O VITHU NAIK
Location: HIGH AGE: 59 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
COURT OF R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
KARNATAKA
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
4. MALLAPPA BADIGER S/O KALLAPPA BADIGER
AGE: 68 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
5. ASHWINI PATIL W/O YASHWANT PATIL
AGE: 39 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
6. SHIVASHANKAR CHINNAPUR
S/O KUDLAPPA CHINNAPUR
AGE: 64 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
7. KHOKA SINGH THAPA S/O BHUPAL SINGH
AGE: 62 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
8. KIMKHOLAM W/O HAOKHOSE KUKI
AGE: 64 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
9. SHANTARAM S/O PARSHURAM PATIL
AGE: 61 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
10. SHIVAKUMAR S/O MALLAPPA KITTUR
AGE: 57 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
11. SHIVANAND S/O MALLAPPA KITTUR
AGE: 36 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
12. SAVITHA W/O MALLESHI JOLAD
AGE: 44 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
13. SHAILA W/O MALLAPPA SANGOLLI
AGE: 35 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
14. VIJAY S/O RAMCHANDRA JADHAV
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
15. PANDURANG S/O BALU CHAVAN
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
16. BRAHMADEV S/O VASANT DESAI
AGE: 44 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
17. SANNAPPA BHAJANTRI S/O YAMANAPPA BHAJANTRI
AGE: 60 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
18. SANNYALLAPPA S/O RAMLING RANOJI
AGE: 60 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
19. PRADEEP SHARMA S/O BIHARILAL SHARMA
AGE: 47 YEARS OCC- SERVICE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
20. SHARANAPPA HALATTI S/O BASAPPA HALATTI
AGE: 57 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
21. RAJESH DHAMANEKAR S/O BHARAMANNAI
AGE: 47 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
22. NAGENDRA SUNTAKAR
S/O BHAVAKANNA SUNTAKAR
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
AGE: 58 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
23. RN MANJUNATH S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGE: 54 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
24. AMAR KHOT S/O PANDURANG KHOT
AGE: 45 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
25. VISHNU S/O MALLAPPA SULEBHAVKAR
AGE: 48 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
26. GOPAL S/O NARAYAN KESARKAR
AGE: 55 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
27. SANJAY S/O LAXMAN TAMBALENDE
AGE: 50 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
28. REKHA W/O SUNIL BALEKUNDRI
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
29. SHOBHA W/O A. RAMETRI
AGE: 39 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
30. BHIMRAO S/O BHAIRU PUJERI
AGE: 42 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
31. SUREKHA BOKADE/O RAVALU BOKADE
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
32. SHAKUNTALA W/O HANAMANT MASADAR
AGE: 46 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
33. SUDHA KAMBALE W/O VITHAL KAMBALE
AGE: 55 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
34. MAYURI NAGARE W/O RAVINDRA NAGARE
AGE: 37 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
35. SERENA W/O FRANCISCO BORGES
AGE: 65 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
36. ASHWINI W/O VINAYAK JELGEKAR
AGE: 30 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
37. VAISHNAVI W/O VITHAL PATIL
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
38. ADIVEPPA MALAGI S/O BASAVANNEPPA MALAGI
AGE: 51 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
39. KAMAT S/O LAXMAN JOGI
AGE: 49 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
40. SANJAY CHANDGADKAR
S/O YALLAPPA CHANDGADKAR
AGE: 57 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
41. SURESH PADENNAVAR S/O BASALINGAPPA
AGE: 54 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
42. SALVADOR S D' SOUZ S/O ANTHON D'SOUZA
AGE: 54 YEARS OCC- RETIRED
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
43. UJWALA KAMBALE W/O SUNIL KAMBALE
AGE: 49 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
44. YOGITA W/O JANARDHAN PATIL
AGE: 46 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
45. LATA PATIL W/O MARUTI PATIL
AGE: 46 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
46. SUVARNA KOTEKAR W/O SATTUPPA KOTEKAR
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
47. KANCHANA REDEKAR W/O MARUTI REDEKAR
AGE: 33 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
48. DATTU KAMBALE S/O BALU KAMBALE
AGE: 54 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
49. SHOBHA MAJATI W/O IRANNA MAJATI
AGE: 50 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
50. HAMBIRAO BAMANE S/O BHIMRAO BAMANE
AGE: 60 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
51. LAXMI SAMBREKAR W/O BHUJANG SABREKAR
AGE: 35 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
52. SAROJINI WALI W/O GANGAPPA WALI
AGE: 47 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
53. RUPA JAINER W/O KUBERAPPA JAINER
AGE: 50 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
54. DEVAKKA RAO W/O NAGAYYA RAO
AGE: 75 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
55. SIDDAMMA W/O ISHWAR WALISHETTI
AGE: 44 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
56. SUJATA NALWADE WMO MANOHAR NALWADE
AGE: 43 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
57. SUCHITA W/O BHARAMANNA KADAM
AGE: 37 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
58. VEENA W/O VEERBHADRAPPA KALLANNAVAR
AGE: 36 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
59. SUVARNA W/O MAHESH RAJUKAR
AGE: 32 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
60. ANITA JADHAV W/O RAJU JADHAV
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
61. JAYASHREE S/O SIDRAM JAMADAR
AGE: 54 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
62. SANJAY S/O KESHAV DATTA SANWAL
AGE: 43 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
63. SUNITA W/O BALKRISHNA PATIL
AGE: 53 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
64. IRAPPA S/O CHANNAMALLAPPA DESNUR
AGE: 56 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
65. DAYANAND PATIL S/O DULABA PATIL
AGE: 43 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
66. ARUNA PATIL W/O AUDUT PATIL
AGE: 32 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
67. PRAMOD S/O CHIMMANCHARYA AGNIHOTRI
AGE: 60 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
68. BALAPPA MANNIKERI S/O LAXMNA MANNIKERI
AGE: 59 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
69. SADANAND S/O SIDDAPPA SAMBARAGI
AGE: 56 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
70. PUNDLEEK LOTULKAR SO BHAIRU LOTULKAR
AGE: 60 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
71. VINAYAK CHALWADI S/O FAKIRAPPA CHALWADI
AGE: 38 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
72. NITIN PATIL S/O PARSHARAM PATIL
AGE: 47 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
73. VIRUPAXI S/O BASAPPA MAJAGI
AGE: 58 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
74. RATNAMALA W/O GAJANAN SAKPAL
AGE: 36 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
75. SHOBHA W/O BASAVARAJ BHAJANTRI
AGE: 41 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
76. NEETA SURVE W/O SANJAY SURVE
AGE: 46 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
77. AMRUTA S/O SATUPPA KHADE
AGE: 44 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
78. MANOHAR GAVADE S/O DEVA GAVADE
AGE: 52 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
79. VIDHYA GURAV W/O SHANTARAM GURAV
AGE: 39 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
80. SHAMALA W/O SUNIL DESAI
AGE: 43 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
81. SN TIWARI S/O NARAYAN TIWARI
AGE: 63 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
82. SHUBHANGI PATIL W/O PUNDLIK PATIL
AGE: 35 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
83. ULAWAPPA NADUVINHALLI S/O. BASAWANEPPA
AGE: 61 YEARS OCC- EX-HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
84. LAXMAN S/O NARAYAN BADIGER
AGE: 60 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
85. MARUTI S/O. YALLAPPA BARIMARAD
AGE: 44 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
86. SHIVAJI MORE S/O KALLAPPA MORE
AGE: 42 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
87. BASAPPA DHABALE S/O LAKMANNA DHABALE
AGE: 60 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
88. VILAS APPUGOL S/O BABURAO APPUGOL
AGE: 62 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
89. RAMESH S/O DASHRAT KAKATIKAR
AGE: 55 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
90. MAHADEV S/O HANAMANT PAWAR
AGE: 53 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
91. SHIVAJI S/O MARUTI BHOSALE
AGE: 70 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
92. VIJAY BOKADE S/O OMANI BOKADE
AGE: 45 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
93. NAMRATA IW/O PANDURANG DESAI
AGE: 44 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
94. PRAHLAD PATIL S/O NINGAPPA
AGE: 59 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
95. RAMLING S/O DENU GAVADE
AGE: 52 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
96. ARCHANA PATIL W/O SAGAR PATIL
AGE: 31 YEARS OCC- EX- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
97. VINOD KAMBALE S/O BABAJI KAMBALE
AGE: 43 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
98. BHARAT GAWALI S/O MARUTI GAWALI
AGE: 49 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
99. SEBASTIAN S/O BALKU D' SOUZA
AGE: 45 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
100. JOTIBA FADATARE S/O RAMU FADATARE
AGE: 53 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
101. NIRANJAN MAJUKAR
S/O PARASHARAM MAJUKAR
AGE: 54 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
102. SUBHASH GAWADE S/O KRISHNA GAWADE
AGE: 54 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
103. UTTAM UBALE S/O GANAPATI UBALE
AGE: 62 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
104. SURESH MANNIKERI S/O HALAPPA MANNIKERI
AGE: 42 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
105. MAHANTESH GOUDAR S/O KALLAPPA GOUDAR
AGE: 58 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
106. PRATIMA PATIL W/O PRAKASH PATIL
AGE: 50 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
107. UJWALA GURAV W/O VISHWANATH GURAV
AGE: 38 YEARS OCC- EX-HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
108. SWETA KAGANIKAR W/O ASHOK KAGANIKAR
AGE: 46 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
109. MARUTI S/O SATERI GORE
AGE: 46 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
110. SUNIL CHAVAN S/O SHAMRAO CHAVAN
AGE: 50 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
111. YALLAPPA DHAMNEKAR S/O ARJUN DHAMNEKARI
AGE: 49 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
112. SHATUPPA MORE S/O SOMANI MORE
AGE: 49 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
113. SMITA MADARPAR W/O SANJAY MADAR
AGE: 45 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
114. SANGEETA W/O SANDEEP BAGILGEKAR
AGE: 35 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
115. ASHWINI W/O RAVINDRA ZAGADU
AGE: 37 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
116. WILSON /O MARCELIN CORVALHO
AGE: 59 YEARS OCC- REITIRED
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
117. KESHOB S/O BAHADUR THAPA
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
118. BEEBATAI S/O MAHENDRA MALAGI
AGE: 39 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
119. AMIT S/O GANAPAT RATAN
AGE: 35 YEARS OCC- SERVICE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
120. KEDARI MOTARACHE S/O RANOJI MOTARACHE
AGE: 59 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
121. GANGUBAI W/O APPAJI PATIL
AGE: 51 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
122. SHIVAJI S/O TATOBA PATIL
AGE: 70 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
123. BHARATI D/O RUDRAGOUDRA SHIVANGOUDRA
AGE: 37 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
124. DHAREPPA MALAGI S/O ANNAPPA MALAGI
AGE: 50 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
125. APPASAHEB S/O ALLAUDDIN SANADI
AGE: 59 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
126. BASAVARAJ W/O DUNDPPA BAMANALLI
AGE: 44 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
127. BASAVARAJ MATHAPATI S/O BALAYYA MATHAPATI
AGE: 48 YEARS OCC- SERVICE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
128. GOVINDSINGH RAJPUT S/O SURATSINGH RAJPUT
AGE: 60 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
129. REKHA W/O RAVINDRA SHIRGAONKAR
AGE: 54 YEARS OCC- RETIRED
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
130. RAJU S/O OMANI BHOKAD
AGE: 52 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
131. DURGARAM S/O KRISHNA BHUJABAL
AGE: 53 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
132. SURESH GURAV S/O ANANTRAO GURAV
AGE: 63 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
133. SANTRAM PATIL S/O BABU PATIL
AGE: 54 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
134. SANTOSH CHAVAN S/O SAMBAHI CHAVAN
AGE: 42 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
135. NINGAPPA KUNAMINCHI S.O NILAPPA
AGE: 47 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
136. MANOHAR SATPALKAR S/O TUKARAM
AGE: 43 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
137. ANIL D'SOUZA S/O INAS D' SOUZA
AGE: 48 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
138. ANKITA W/O SANJAY KAVATHANKAR
AGE: 35 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
139. VARSHARANI W/O GORAKHNATH PAWAR
AGE: 33 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
140. VATSALA SHETTI W/O ASHOK SHETTI
AGE: 61 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
141. SARITA BINGUDE W/O NITIN BINGUDE
AGE: 39 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
142. PAPAJI PAWAR S/O BHAURAO PAWAR
AGE: 43 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
143. FLORA W/O ANIL SOUZA
AGE: 35 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
144. OBRI D' SOUZA S/O CYRIL
AGE: 45 YEARS OCC- RETIRED
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
145. PRADEEP HALGEKAR S/O PAVANU
AGE: 42 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
146. JYOTI JAMBUTKAR W/O GOPAL
AGE: 53 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
147. SHIVANAND DODAMANI S/O BASAVARAJ
AGE: 34 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
148. NEETA W/O RAJARAM BHOGAN
AGE: 34 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
149. KALLAPPA DONWADE S/O SIDDAPPA
AGE: 56 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
150. LAXMI W/O DURADUNDI WALKI
AGE: 35 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
151. SOMANNA PATIL S/O ARJUN PATIL
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
152. KANCHANA GAWADE W/O RAMLING GAWADE
AGE: 59 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
153. MALLAPPA S/O SADEPPA GOUDAR
AGE: 50 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
154. MALASHRI BADKUNDRI W/O MARUTI BADKUNDRI
AGE: 33 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
155. MANIK WAGHMORE
S/O SHIVRAM WAGHMORE
AGE: 65 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
156. DEVAKKA RAO W/O NAGAYYA RAO
AGE: 75 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
157. RAMESH S/O DASHRATH KAKATIKAR
AGE: 48 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
158. MANGAL PATIL W/O SHIVAJI PATIL
AGE: 39 YEARS OCC- HOUSE WIFE
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
159. KRISHNA BASTWADKAR
S/O BALAPPA BASTAWADKAR
AGE: 79 YEARS OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
160. KALPANA D/O DASHRATHA TARIHALKAR
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009
161. RAJU S/O VITHAL NIDASOSI
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC- EX-SERVICEMAN
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, BELAGAVI-590009.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMANDANT,
STATION HEAQUARTERS,
BELAGAVI, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
2. THE STATION COMMANDER,
STATION HEADQUARTERS,
BELAGAVI, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
3. CANTONMENT BOARD,
BELAGAVI, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
4. THE GENERAL OFFICER, COMMANDING IN CHIEF,
SOUTHERN COMMAND, KOREGAON PARK,
PUNE, MAHARASHTRA-411001.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
D.C. COMPOUND, BELAGAVI,
TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
6. THE UNION OF INDIA,
BY ITS DEFENCE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
NEW DELHI-110001
7. THE BELAGAVI CITY CORPORATION
BELAGAVI
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI. ARAVIND KAMATH, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL
A/W SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADV. FOR R1, R2, R4 &
R6; SMT. APOORVA SONNANNAVAR, ADV. FOR
SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADV. FOR R3;
SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R5;
SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO OPEN THE MILITARY GATE
LOCATED AT SAINIK NAGAR AND ALLOW THE PETITIONERS
AND THEIR FAMILY TO ACCESS THE PUBLIC ROAD BY
ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY; TO PASS ANY OTHER ORDER AS THE COURT MAY
DEEM FIT; TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONERS
AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS TO USE, ACCESS THE ROAD
THROUGH GATE SITUATED ON THE COMPOUND WALL OF THE
RESPONDENTS FROM MORNING 5 O CLOCK TO EVENING 8 O
CLOCK BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED
22/5/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND REPRESENTATIONS DATED
18/01/2024, 21/06/2024, 14/2/2024, VIDE ANNEXURES-G, G1,
G2, G3 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITIONS.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
IN WP NO.103397/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SURESH S/O RAMAPPA MAGADUM,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC- SERVICE,
R/O: #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009
2. SUNANDA W/O SANTOSH BANDI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
3. RAJASHRI W/O KADAPPA RUGAWANNAVAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
4. BHARATI W/O NINGANGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
5. SUNANDA W/O LATE SURESH KATTI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
6. ASHOK PANSHETTI S/O SHANKAR PANSHETTI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC- SERVICE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
7. KRISHNAJI S/O VITHAL GOUDA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC- SERVICE,
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
8. DRAKSHAYINI W/O BASAPPA NEPARI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
9. KAVITHA W/O LAXMAPPA HOSAMANI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
10. SHAKUNTALA W/O ANANDA PATIL,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
11. GAURAWWA W/O MALLAPPA KATTIKAR,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
12. SHILPA W/O NAGESH UMANNAVAR,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
13. PARVEEZ S/O LATE AHMED SAYED,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC- RETIRED,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
14. ASHA W/O PRASHANT GALIMATH,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE,
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
15. SAROJA D/O BASALINGAYYA MATHAPATI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
16. ANANDA S/O MALLIKARJUN GANACHARI,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC- SERVICE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
17. GEETA W/O PATRAYAYA PUJARI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC- SERVICE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
18. GORAKH S/O APPARAO BADE,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC- RETIRED,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
19. SARILATAI W/O DATTATRAY PATIL,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
20. BALASAHEB S/O RANGRAO SALUNKHE,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC- RETIRED,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
21. MANOHAR S/O SHANKAR MORE,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC- RETIRED,
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
22. PUNLDIK POWAR S/O GUNDI PAWAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC- RETIRED,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
23. GANGARAM GAWAS,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC- RETIRED,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
24. KIRAN S/O DEVENDRA NERLIKAR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC- LAWYER,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
25. DEEPA W/O DILIP DALAVI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
26. PARASAPPA S/O NINGAPPA HANCINMANI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC- RETIRED,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
27. CHANDRAKANT S/O KRISHNA GAWAS,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC- RETIRED,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
28. NEELAKANT S/O MAHADEVAPPA KAMBAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC- RETIRED,
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
29. GIRIJA W/O SHARANAPPA SUDI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
30. MALLIKJAN S/O MEERASAB NAGARI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC- SERVICE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
31. SARITA W/O TANAJI UKKOJI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
32. KEMPANNA S/O NINGAPAPA KABADAGI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC- SERVICE,
R/O #18/2B, SAINIK NAGAR,
LAXMITEK, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
...PETITIONERS
( BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMANDANT
STATION HEAQUARTERS,
BELAGAVI, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
2. THE STATION COMMANDER,
STATION HEADQUARTERS,
BELAGAVI, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
3. CANTONMENT BOARD,
BELAGAVI, TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
4. THE GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF,
SOUTHERN COMMAND, KOREGAON PARK,
PUNE, MAHARASHTRA-411001.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
D.C. COMPOUND, BELAGAVI,
TQ: BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.
6. THE UNION OF INDIA,
BY ITS DEFENCE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
NEW DELHI-110001
7. THE BELAGAVI CITY CORPORATION
BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI. ARAVIND KAMATH, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR
SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADV. FOR R1-R4 AND R6;
SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R5;
SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO OPEN THE MILITARY GATE
LOCATED AT SAINIK NAGAR AND ALLOW THE PETITIONERS
AND THEIR FAMILY TO ACCESS THE PUBLIC ROAD BY
ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 26.09.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CAV ORDER
1. Heard Sri.Shivaraj P Mudhol, learned counsel
for the petitioners, Sri.Aravind Kamath, learned Additional
Solicitor General and Sri.Sanjay S Katageri, learned
counsel for respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 6 and Sri.Praveen
K Uppar, learned AGA for respondent No.5 and Sri.Aravind
D Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.7 and
Sri.K.S.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents
No.3.
2. Writ petition No.104128/2024 is filed praying
this Court to issue writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent Authorities to open the military
gate located at Sainik Nagar and allow the petitioners and
their family to access the public road by allowing this writ
petition and to issue writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to permit the petitioners and
their family members to use, access the road through Gate
situated on the compound wall of the respondents from
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
Morning 5 O clock to Evening 8 O clock by considering the
representations dated 22.05.2024 vide Annexure-C and
representations dated 18.01.2024, 21.06.2024,
14.02.2024 vide Annexures- G, G1, G2, G3 by allowing
the petition.
3. Writ petition No.103397/2024 is filed praying
this Court to issue writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent Authorities to open the military
gate located at Sainik Nagar and allow the petitioners and
their family to access the public road by allowing this writ
petition and to issue writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to permit the petitioners and
their family members to use, access the road through Gate
situated on the compound wall of the respondents from
Morning 5 O clock to Evening 8 O clock by considering the
representations dated 22.05.2024 vide Annexure-C and
representations dated 18.01.2024, 21.06.2024,
14.02.2024, vide Annexures- G, G1, G2, G3 by allowing
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
the petition and also sought additional prayer in view of
the amendment for writ of mandamus.
4. The relief sought for and the grounds which
have been urged in both the petitions are similar and
hence, both the petitions are taken up for consideration
together.
5. In Writ Petition No.104128/2024 there are 161
petitioners and in Writ Petition No.103397/2024 there are
32 petitioners. All the petitioners claim that they are the
members of Sainikar Abhivruddhi Sangh and the residents
of LaxmiTek (Sainik Nagar) area wherein serving soldiers,
around 1300 Ex- Service Men (herein after referred to as
ESM) and their dependents/widows/veer naris who reside
in the aforementioned area (Ward No. 43) and they also
referred the document at Annexure-A, the copy of the
nominal roll of serving/retired ESM of LaxmiTek (Sainik
Nagar), Belagavi. It is also contended that this area comes
under the purview of the Belagavi City Corporation and
there exists a military area adjoining to it. That the
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
military area gate towards LaxmiTek area has been closed
from 14.11.2023 by the Station Headquarters, Belagavi
and the said road is a public road. The petitioners have
also relied upon the copy of the photographs of the gate
being closed as Annexure-B, B1, B2 and also copy of the
hand sketch is produced as Annexure-B3. It is also their
contention that this road has been frequented and used by
the petitioners for over 35 years and the road has been in
public use since the time of British Rule. All of sudden, the
respondents Authorities have closed the gate and have not
permitted these petitioners and their family members to
use the public road and its spontaneous closure has
caused many problems to the petitioner residents.
6. It is also contended that the said road is used
to access the following by the petitioners, all of which
happen to be within walk-able distance from the area
(Approximately 1km) i.e. Station CSD Canteen, Military
Hospital/ECHS Facilities, Educational Institutes such as
Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2, Army Public School, St. Paul, St.
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
Joseph and such other Government Schools and Colleges,
in which around 200 students residing in the area. That
there are 8 such other roads in Belagavi which are open
and has been in use for many years. That earlier to this,
there was no gate in this road and it was open in a full-
fledged manner and that the gate was only put up in the
year 2019.
7. It is also contended that due to the closure of
the gate, the petitioners and their family members of the
area are made to travel unnecessarily of an additional 4-5
kms to access these places and to visit Belagavi City. It is
also contended that now, the schools are started and in
view of closure of the said gate, all of them are facing
difficulties and the residents have also made several
representations to the Station Headquarters and ESM and
dependants of LaxmiTek area requested the Station
Commander, Belagavi to open the Military Gate during
ESM Rally conducted by MLIRC on 26.11.2023 and ESM of
the area have visited and requested Administrative
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
Commander, Station Headquarters, Belagavi to open
Military Gate on 22.12.2023. ESM of this area visited and
requested Station Commander, Station Headquarters to
open Military Gate on 12.01.2024. That more than 7
months have lapsed since, yet, the gates remain closed.
That the retired ESM/residents have submitted a written
representation dated 22.05.2024 to the respondent
Authorities regarding the same, and there is no reply by
the respondent Authorities. The copy of the representation
filed by the petitioners is produced and marked at
Annexure-C.
8. It is also contended that some of the residents
in that area have approached this Court by filing a Writ
Petition No.107847/2023 against the respondents for
seeking appropriate relief to use the said road, and after
hearing both sides, this Court was pleased to allow the
writ petition and permitted those writ petitioners to use
the road from 5.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. The copy of the
judgment of this Court is produced as Annexure-D. Similar
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
issue was also before the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.3549/1997 reported in 1998 (3) KARLJ 102 wherein it
was held that the action of the respondent Army
Authorities in imposing the restrictions is illegal and
unwarranted and the same violates the right conferred
under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India and held
that it was unconstitutional. The copy of judgment is also
produced as Annexure-E. It is also the contention of the
petitioners that they have no other alternative remedy
than to approach this Court by invoking extra ordinary
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of
India.
9. In both the writ petitions, it is urged in the
grounds that freedom of movement or locomotion is a
golden right enshrined in the Article 19 (1) (d) of the
Constitution of India wherein the right to move as per
one's own choice is recognized. The respondent Authorities
have acted arbitrarily and at their own whims and fancies
have closed the gate situated at the public road in Sainik
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
Nagar, Belagavi, thereby curtailing the fundamental rights
enshrined in the Constitution of India. It is also contended
that the Cantonment Act lays down the procedure to be
followed if it intends to block/restrict public movements on
Boards maintained by the Cantonment Board. Further,
Section 258 of the Cantonment Act provides for closing
and opening of streets wherein a procedure is prescribed
for 'closing and opening of streets' wherein a public notice
inviting objections and suggestions from the general public
is to be issued. No such public notice is issued and no
objections are invited. Even the petitioners have made
several representations to the respondent Authorities
requesting them to open the gate. That the road on which
the military gate is put up is a public road and therefore,
comes under the jurisdiction of the Belagavi Corporation.
The respondent Authorities have no authority/jurisdiction
to prevent the general public from accessing a public road
that is used by the serving/ESM and their dependents to
access educational institutions, hospitals, Army canteen
and to visit Belagavi City and most of the ESM are old
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
aged people, their children serving in the Army/Navy/Air-
force/Private Sectors, children attending schools and
colleges and the respondents have failed to take note of
the hardships faced by the petitioners. Hence, the
petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus directing
the respondent Authorities to open the military gate and
allow the petitioners and their family to access the public
road.
10. Counsel for the petitioners also in support of his
argument, relied upon two judgments i.e. in the case of
Dr.Nitin G. Khot and Others vs. Station Commandant
Belgaum reported in ILR 1998 KAR 2194 and brought
to notice of this Court para Nos.7 to 14, wherein the
Division Bench has considered similar issues. Counsel
brought to notice of this Court particularly para Nos.7 to
10 with regard to his contentions and in para Nos.12 and
14, it is held that mere fact that the roads pass through
the Army areas or Cantonment Board would not change
their nature authorising the Army Authorities to put
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
restrictions resulting inconvenience to the general public
affecting their fundamental right of the freedom of
passage as enshrined in Article 19(1)(d) of the
Constitution.
11. Counsel also relied upon the judgment in the
case of Morning Walkers Association and 5 Others vs.
Allahabad Cantonment Board Thru' Exe. Officer
reported in 2015 SCC Online All 6332 and brought to
notice of this Court discussion made in para No.32,
wherein it is observed that there is a temptation to
understand such freedoms in one's own individual interest,
but this may reflect a general collective interest when it
comes to a cause relating to normal public life. This then
becomes a debate of public interest as against exclusive
State interest. A restriction applied in an unreasonable
way gives rise to protests, as in the present case, to a call
before the courts.
12. In para No.33 of the said judgment also, it is
observed that nonetheless merely because a road which
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
has been constructed over a land that came to be
classified as Class A(1) land would not take away its status
of a street as defined under Section 2(zza) of the 2006
Act. The streets which have been mentioned in the writ
petition are connected with the pure civilian areas directly
adjacent to such roads, namely the High Court, Bungalow
of Judges and also civilian occupants of bungalows within
the cantonment including residential areas. Thus these
streets and roads are an access to civilians as well who
reside within the cantonment. This is necessary to
emphasize as the respondents themselves have not
disputed this position but they contend that since there
are military establishments as well on these roads, they
intend to impose restrictions.
13. Counsel also brought to notice of this Court
para No.49 of the said judgment, wherein discussion is
made that in such a situation, imposing a condition for
obtaining passes is neither a legal requirement under any
law as discussed hereinabove nor does it appear to be in
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
conformity with the rights protected and guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. There is
no discernible rational nexus for asking morning and
evening walkers to obtain a military pass for commuting
on a street as involved presently in the case.
14. Per contra, Sri.Aravind Kamath, learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing for respondents
No.1, 2, 4 and 6 brought to notice of this Court the
statement of objections filed by them against the
contentions of the petitioners. In the statement of
objections, it is contended that untenable reasons and
pleadings are pleaded and the same is not amenable and
tenable under the writ jurisdiction. The undisputed position
is that the land in respect of which the petitioners are
claiming to enter upon is Class A1 land as specified under
the said Rules 2006 and earlier 1937 Rules. There is
settled position of law and as such the petitioners are not
having any right or interest in any manner over the said
area and hence the writ petitions are misconceived.
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
15. It is also contended that the final order passed
on 20.02.2024 in W.P.No.107847/2023, this Court has
given categorical finding of fact in para No.15 that the land
being classified as Class A1 reserved for military purposes
and it does not belong to Belagavi City Municipal
Corporation. In para No.19 also, it is observed that the
commandant having the jurisdiction and authority to
decide on the manner and methodology of usage of the
land classified as Class A1. It is also contended that earlier
by letter dated 28.04.2023, the respondent Authorities
had informed the petitioners that the land in question
being Class A1, cannot be allowed to be used by the
members of the public. He contends that when the Court
has categorically held that the respondents are having
authority to decide on the manner and methodology of
usage of Class A1 land, they cannot claim it as a matter of
right. There are several disputes and question of facts that
arise in the adjudication of the above writ petitions and
the same cannot be decided in the writ petitions.
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
16. It is contended that the area in which the
petitioners are residing is not an approved layout by the
Belagavi Urban Development Authority as per the report of
the City Corporation, Belagavi and the same is produced
as Annexure-R1 and the said area is an agricultural land
which has not been converted. It is also contended that
where respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 6 have installed the
gate, is within the exclusive military land classified as
Class A(1)(2) of Cantonment Land Administration Rules,
2021 which are framed under the Cantonment Act, 2006.
The land in question is within the Class A1 which is
required reserved specialty for military purposes. The said
area where the gate is installed is not even within the
cantonment road, Belagavi as provided under Section 122
of the Cantonment Act so also under Section 258 of the
Act. The said map is up to by constructing boundary wall
and the same is in Sy.No.183 which in all measuring about
38,500 acres and the same is notified as Class A1 land and
is placed under the Ministry of Defence (MOD) by order
dated 10.10.1974 and 18.11.1974 and also produced
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
document of GLR as Annexure-R1. The compound wall and
the gate are part of the facilities provided in the area for
the use of military Authorities and the occupants of the
area.
17. It is also contended that the entire area under
Class A1 is entrusted under the management and
administrative control of military Authorities as proved at
Rule 7(1), 7(7) and 14(1) of the said Rules 2021. The
cantonment map is also produced as Annexure-R2. The
Google map of location with public roads is also produced
as Annexure-R3. It is also contended that the petitioners
herein have got alternate way by many means of road and
the very distance in this regard is around 1.4 k.m. That,
from the said gate to the military hospital, canteen etc., is
around 0.95 k.m. Thus, the difference of distance to travel
for the petitioners is about just 0.45 k.m. Copy of the said
location map is produced as Annexure-R4. Photographs
are also produced as Annexure-R5 collectively in this
regard.
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
18. It is also the contention that earlier the
petitioners have given representation on 13.03.2023 and
map is also produced as Annexure-R6 and copy of reply
dated 28.04.2023 is produced as Annexure-R7. It is
contended that the said aspect of permitting to have
access from morning 5.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. was for
limited purpose and subsequently the same was reviewed
by the respondents in the meetings held and the same is
produced as Annexure-R9. It is contended that the
complaint was given by respondent No.1 to the Civil
Authorities, Belagavi Urban Development Authority and
City Corporation, Belagavi since unauthorized construction
was taken place by putting shacks/stalls at the said Army
gate and the copy of complaint with Google map and
photos at the said compound wall is produced as
Annexure-R8. Subsequently in the month of November-
2023, the Army Authorities, Belagavi have decided to close
the said gate completely as the said area was declared of
potentially security threat and directed to vacate the said
premises on 25.12.2023 as the said gate at the compound
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
wall at Class A1 land will be closed permanently. The said
decision was considered in the quarterly station
conference held on 22.11.2023 at Station Headquarter
Camp, Belagavi and the minutes of conference held on
22.11.2023 is produced as Annexure-R9. There is
reference regarding the judgment passed by the Andhra
Pradesh High Court, wherein discussion was made with
regard to cantonment zone under the Act of 2006 and
then existing Rules 1937 which are same with the present
Rules 2021 and the copy of HQ letter dated 22.10.2021 is
produced as Annexure-R10.
19. It is contended that respondent No.1 is the
authorized person to take action in this regard as provided
under the Army Service Regulations (Defence Service
Regulation) and copy of regulation is produced as
Annexure-R11. The contention that it violates the
fundamental right cannot be accepted. The petitioners
have not questioned the Authority of respondent No.1. It
is also contended that this Court already comes to the
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
conclusion that the said area is classified as Class A1
reserved for military purposes and even the learned Single
Judge of this Court has also considered the report sought
from the City Corporation and the Corporation also stated
that they have other alternate road and report dated
09.02.2024 is produced as Annexure-R12 and order
passed by this Court in W.A.No.100122/2024 on
05.08.2024 is also produced as Annexure-R13, wherein
stay was granted with regard to permitting the petitioners
therein to have access from 5.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m.
20. It is also contended that the copy of the
persons who have visited the said polyclinic, Belagavi at
the said military Hospital for month wise statement May-
2024 till Aug-2024 shows that every month around 10,000
people are visiting. The copy of the same is produced and
marked as Annexure-R14 and copy of monthly veterans
meetings held in this regard for the month of Aug-2024 is
produced as Annexure-R15. It is contended that in the
case of Mani Enclave Residents Welfare Association Vs.
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
Union of India in Writ Petition No.62/2014 and Writ
Petition No.82/2014 connected with Writ Petition
No.5772/2014, the Andhra Pradesh High Court uphold the
validity of the said Rules and the decision of the local
military Authorities to close down the road, which are
falling within the area classified as Class-! Under the said
Rules. The copy of the same is produced as Annexure-R16.
21. It is also contended that the High Court of
Gujarat in the Case Hemant Rameshchandra Rupala
Vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petition
No.5767/2019 (Special Civil Application) held that the
Land in question if falls Under Class A-1 Under the
Cantonment Administrative Rules, 1937 (now 2021 Rules),
then the Military Authorities have got Right to determine
which Area is sensitive or more prone to such hazard or
which is not or through which a passage can be permitted
or not and it is their sole discretion and in the absence of
any Right of any party, a Mandate cannot be issued. The
copy of the order dated 07.06.2022 is produced as
- 47 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
Annexure-R17 and the same is confirmed in appeal vide
order dated 04.01.2024 and the same is produced as
Annexure-R18.
22. The respondents having taken the above
contentions, also contend that, in the present case the
said gate fixed by respondent No.1 at the boundary wall of
LaxmiTek and Sainik Colony, Belagavi are within the said
Class A1 and therefore the contention of the petitioners
that it is 'C' class land therefore the judgment of this Court
in the case of Dr.Nitin G. Khot referred supra is not
applicable to the present case. The said 16 roads in the
said writ petitions were held to be having linked with other
main roads to Belagavi City and other adjoining areas.
Hence, the petitioners cannot rely upon the same. It is
highly impossible for respondent No.1 to make such
inspection and checking at the said place of gate since
more than 5,000 residents are residing in the said place
and there is threat to the military area and hence they
cannot seek any relief.
- 48 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
23. Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court apart from the judgments which have been
annexed along with statement of objections i.e. in the case
of Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another
reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 and brought to notice of
this Court para No.83 wherein it is held that the General
Land Register and other documents maintained by the
Cantonment Board under the Cantonment Act, 1924 and
the Rules made thereunder are public documents and the
certified copies of the same are admissible in evidence in
view of the provisions of Section 65 read with Section
74 of the Evidence Act. It is settled legal position that the
entries made in General Land Register maintained under
Cantonment Land Administration Rules is conclusive
evidence of title. (Vide: Chief Executive Officer v. Surendra
Kumar Vakil, AIR 1999 SC 2294; and Union of India & Ors.
v. Kamla Verma, (2010) 13 SCC 511).
- 49 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
24. Counsel for respondents also would vehemently
contend by filing written synopsis that the following
questions are to be determined in these writ petitions:
i. Whether the land in question is a Class A1
land in terms of the Cantonment Land
Administration Rules, 2021?
ii. Whether the defence Authorities have the
right to decide the manner and
methodology of usage of a Class A1 land?
iii. Whether the decision of the respondent-
defence Authorities to permanently close
the gate towards the Sainik Nagar side
suffers from any legal infirmities and calls
for any interference?
iv. Whether the petitioners claiming to be ex-
servicemen are part of 'public' and if they
need to be accorded any special
treatment?
v. Whether the petitioners and other
residents of Sainik Nagar have any
alternative route to access the polyclinic,
canteen stores department and other
facilities?
- 50 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
25. Counsel for respondent No.3 also would
vehemently contend that the petitioners are not entitled
for any relief and Section 258 of Cantonment Act which
was relied upon is also not applicable to the petitioners as
contended and the judgment in the case of Dr.Nitin G.
Khot is also not applicable and the same is not a road at
all and even Section 258 is also not applicable.
26. In view of the submissions of respective
counsels, the above questions are to be considered by this
Court.
27. Having heard the respective counsels and on
perusal of the material on record and the grounds which
have been urged in both the petitions and the statement
of objections, it has to be noted that this Court has
already in W.P.No.107847/2023 when similar question was
raised, in para No.15 held that land being classified as
Class A1 reserved for military purposes are under
exclusive control and usage of the defence Authorities
cannot also be disputed. Essentially, the said land would
- 51 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
come within the purview of the commandant of the
military area once it is out of the jurisdiction of the
Cantonment Board. In para No.19 also, it is held that the
commandant is having jurisdiction and Authority to decide
on the manner and methodology of usage of the land
classified as Class A-1, which is evident from the GLR
which has been produced and hence the action taken by
him cannot be found fault with. However, given permission
to make use of the road from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. in a
manner which does not disturb the residents of military
area of the separate family quarters and/or any activities
being carried out in the said area. Hence, the finding of
this Court is very clear that the same is Class A1 land
area. Though the petitioners' counsel vehemently disputes
that the same is disputed area, respondents' counsel relied
upon Annexure-R1, wherein it is clear that in Sy.No.183
Class A1 area is situated.
28. The Apex Court also in the case of Union of
India referred supra, relied upon by the respondents, it is
- 52 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
categorically held that GLR is a public record and the same
is admissible and respondents also rely on Annexure-R1.
Hence, the first contention that the said land is Class A1
land is not in dispute and the contention of the petitioners'
counsel that the same is disputed area cannot be
accepted.
29. Now the question before this Court is whether
military can impose such conditions in respect of Class A1
land is concerned, it is also not in dispute that the order
passed by this Court was challenged before the Writ
Appellate Court and also contempt petition was also filed
and this Court stayed the order passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court permitting the petitioners
therein to access the said road and also comes to the
conclusion that as per Rule 5, the land is reserved for
military purpose and also there is no dispute to that effect
and said observation is made in writ appeal also. When
such being the case, a letter was also addressed on
28.04.2023 as per Annexure-R7 to the petitioners in
- 53 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
W.P.No.107847/2023 by the respondents informing the
petitioners that the land in question is Class A1 and cannot
be allowed to public use. It is also not in dispute that
permission was given to access the same from 5.00 a.m.
to 8.00 p.m. but the reason assigned for permanent
closure by the respondents is for security concerns and the
respondent Authorities have decided to close the gate
permanently. It is also the contention of respondents that
the defence Authorities have exclusive right to decide the
manner and methodology of usage of Class A1 land.
30. No doubt, counsel for the petitioners has relied
upon the judgment in the case of Dr.Nitin G. Khot,
wherein the Division Bench in para Nos.12 to 14 has held
that in respect of public road is concerned, the military
Authority cannot exercise such power and it enshrines
Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India affecting their
fundamental right and also the question involved in the
said writ petition is 16 roads having linked with other main
roads. But now gate is closed in Class A1 land exclusively
- 54 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
belongs to Military and hence the said judgment will not
come to the aid of petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners
also relied upon the judgment in the case of Morning
Walkers Association, wherein also the Allahabad High
Court held that imposing a condition for obtaining passes
is neither a legal requirement under any law as discussed
hereinabove nor does it appear to be in conformity with
the rights protected and guaranteed under Article
19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. It has to be noted
that these judgments are also discussed by the Gujarat
High Court as well as Andhra Pradesh High Court and also
this Court at Annexure-R13 while considering the
contempt petition and also writ appeal and while granting
the interim order taken note of observation made by this
Court in para No.15 and also held that there is an
alternate route for having access.
31. It is also important to note that the judgment of
Andhra Pradesh High Court which is produced along with
Annexure-R16 was also referred by the Division Bench of
- 55 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
this Court in para No.35 and distinguished the same i.e. in
respect of usage of public road and also in Annexure-R17
Gujarat High Court in detail discussed with regard to
closed roads in the cantonments. Referring the Division
Bench judgment that land in question is a defence land of
category A1 and said Sop prescribe the procedure for land
of defence which falls under the category of A1 as per
rules. It is also held neither the provision of section 258
of the Cantonment Act nor the Sop of letter dated
21.05.2018 will apply to the land belonging to category A-
1 of the defence land. Hence, this Court is not inclined to
grant any relief to the petitioners, as it is in the absolute
domain of the respondent Authorities to exercise their
discretion with regard to opening or closing of the road
which falls in the defence area and even held with regard
to opening or closure of the road which falls within the
defence area. It is also held that the judgment of
Allahabad High Court will not come to rescue to the
present petitioner.
- 56 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
32. In the judgment produced at Annexure-R18
also, the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case
of Hemant Rameshchandra Rupala vs. Union of India
Thru the Secretary, discussed with regard to Class A1
land and Class A2 and Clause (i) of Rule 5 classifies the
land which is actually used for occupied by the military
Authorities, for the purposes of fortifications. The Court
also by reading Rules of 1937 now Rules of 2021 held that
the Cantonment Board has no control over the
management or supervision of the land falling in category
Class A1 which is actually used or occupied by the military
Authorities for the purposes prescribed in Clause (i) of
Rule 5 of Rules of 1937.
33. Having considered the principles laid down in
the judgments referred supra and also the judgment of the
Apex Court in respect of GLR is concerned and document
which is produced as Annexure-R1, this Court has already
held that it is a land of Class A1 and the same exclusively
belongs to the military and contention of the petitioner
- 57 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
that they are having right to use the same cannot be
accepted. No doubt, the petitioners have served for the
country as Ex-servicemen and some of them are also
working in the Army and their children have also
continued, but they cannot be treated as special persons
and they are also part of public. It is also evident from
the records particularly the report of Belagavi Corporation
which was filed in the earlier writ petition, that they are
having alternative access to the hospital, canteen, etc.,
and it is also specific case of the respondents that distance
on the said road is 1.4 k.m. whereas distance from Class
A1 land is 0.95 k.m. and when such being the case and
distance is also not more and when they are having other
alternate road, the petitioners cannot insist the
respondents to allow them to have access to the said
premises including hospital, educational institutions, etc.
when the same has been classified as Class A1 land
exclusively belonging to military and same is also within
compound of GLR record particularly in Sy.No.183.
- 58 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
34. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention
of the petitioners that they may be given a right to access
the Class A1 land and reason for closure is also that since
there was a threat as well as misusage of the same not
only by the general public and though the petitioners are
Ex-servicemen, they cannot claim as a matter of right and
they are also aware that it is Class A1 land and they are
also aware of the rules and regulations and particularly in
Rule 5 when the same is declared as A1 land they cannot
seek the relief by filing writ petitions and aware of the
nature of Class A1 land and not claims that the same is
not exclusively belongs to the Military and having
knowledge of nature of land.
35. It is contention of respondents that the same is
military area and others shall not enter into the A1 land
and hence I do not find any force in the contention of the
petitioners that this Court can direct the respondents to
open the gate and allow them to have access to the road
which is within the part of Class A1 land and the same is
- 59 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
exclusively belongs to the military. Merely because they
have served for the country, they cannot seek any special
privilege and the same is closed for general public also and
general public issue already also adjudicated before this
Court and this Court already decided the issue that the
same is Class A1 land. Hence, I do not find force in the
contentions of the petitioners to grant the relief as sought
invoking the writ jurisdiction.
36. While amending the writ petition, the
petitioners have also sought an additional prayer seeking
permission to use the said road which was blocked from
5.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. The petitioners contend that the
said relief was granted by this Court in the earlier writ
petition. But it is to be noted that the same has been
challenged before the Appellate Court and Division Bench
of this Court while considering the interim prayer in the
connected contempt petition and writ appeal, granted
stay. When this Court has already comes to the conclusion
that it is Class A1 land exclusively belonging to the military
- 60 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
and the same is also a military area, question of giving
such permission also does not arise. It is also to be noted
that the decision to close the gate permanently was also
taken subsequently, though earlier permission was given
to use the same. Earlier, this Court has granted the relief
in view of the fact that respondents themselves have given
permission to use the same for particular time. But,
subsequently decision was taken to close the same
permanently. Earlier writ petition was only a narrow
compass but in the present writ petitions, the challenge is
made with regard to the permanent closure of the said
gate. When this Court comes to the conclusion that the
respondents have authority to decide the usage of A1 land
and they are having exclusive right to make the modalities
of the usage of the same, the said relief also cannot be
granted though the petitioners have filed additional
documents as Annexure-F series and Annexure-H series
while amending the writ petition. Hence, there is no merit
in both the petitions.
- 61 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14916
WP No. 104128 of 2024
C/W WP No. 103397 of 2024
37. In view of the above discussions, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
sh
