ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND DILIP GUPTA, J.
AJEET SINGH ....Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 4519 of 2011, decided on 14th August, 2014)
Result; Petition Dismissed.
By the Court.—The petition, purportedly in the public interest, has been filed by a resident of Umarpur Niwa village for seeking a mandamus restraining the Union Ministry of Defence, the Military Estates Officer, Allahabad and other authorities of the Indian Army from imposing any restriction on or blocking a road, called ‘Niwa Road’ and from prohibiting access to the members of the public.
2. The petition as it was originally filed was on the basis of the pleading that Umarpur Niwa village with a population of thirty five thousand is connected to Niwa road. Niwa road, it has been averred, connects the village to the Cantonment area at Parashuram Chauraha, New Cant., Allahabad. According to the petitioner, the road in question which falls within the area of the Cantonment of Allahabad has been managed by the Cantonment Board as a public road. The cause of action for the petition was that on 16 January 2011, a notice was put up at the road side by the defence authorities to inform members of the public that the road would be closed from 30 January 2011. The basis of the petition is that Niwa link road has been used by the public and the officers of the Defence establishment are under a legal obligation not to create any restriction on the right of the public. According to the petitioner, the land which is used for the purpose of the link road is not Class A (1) land within the meaning of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, but falls in Class A (2) and is used for the purpose of a road on which the public has a right of way. (Paragraph 19 of the petition, Ground D.) The petitioner relies upon the fundamental right conferred by Article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution.
3. The first counter-affidavit was filed in these proceedings by the Assistant Quarter Master General, 4 Artillery Brigade on 9 February 2011. The counter-affidavit states that the road in question was constructed in 1960 on Survey No. 138 of the General Land Register to connect the training area on Survey No. 139 and Survey No. 6, when the area was developed for the training of troops. This was to include the following:
“(a) Utilization of the McPherson lake as training area for Engineer units in watermanship training;
(b) Rough driving track for training of drivers on survey No. 6 of General Land Register;
(c) Small arms ranges for firing;
(d) Open area for training of troops;
(e) A golf course; and
(f) Construction of ammunition and explosive dump.”
4. Niwa village, it has been stated in the counter-affidavit, does not form a part of the Cantonment. The village and Cantonment were separated by a huge water body called McPherson Lake, which has now dried up due to a lowering of the water level. According to the counter-affidavit, the road in question is purely a military road constructed only for specific military purposes. The land is stated to be Class-A (I) land under the General Land Register and is comprised in Survey No138, ad-measuring 6.55 acres under the management of the Quarter Master General, Government of India, Ministry of Defence. According to the counter-affidavit, access to the road was restricted and was completely barred to the general public but, over the years due to lax policing, the road was trespassed upon by the residents of the village. The Indian Army intends to establish a strategic ammunitions storage facility and, it has been stated on affidavit that allowing the claim in the petition would seriously impinge upon national security. Moreover, it has been submitted that an alternative road which connects Niwa village is already in existence. Since the road in question falls in class A (1) defence land, it has been submitted that under Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules of 1937, the road is reserved for specific and exclusive military purposes of conducting training, movement of war like stores including ammunitions and explosives, conducting of patrolling by armed and mobile quick reaction teams for ensuring security and s
(2009) 3 SCC 571 (Para 22)-Distinguished.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.