Back
H. P. SANDESH
Satish Thombare S/O Prabhakar Thombare – Appellant
Versus
Administrative Commandant, Station Heaquarters – Respondent
ORDER :
H.P.SANDESH
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 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 wri
The military authorities have exclusive control over Class A1 land, and the closure of access does not violate the fundamental right to freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.
The court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for a right to passage, as an alternative route was provided and the land was leased to developers.
The classification of roads in a regularized layout as public roads is binding on residents who have accepted the benefits of such regularization, and they cannot later claim these roads as private.
A writ petition under Article 226 cannot resolve disputes of fact; res judicata and material suppression are significant in adjudicating the validity of claims in earlier proceedings.
The restriction on construction to ground floor only was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, as prior permissions for G+2 were not duly considered.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
