JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner through the medium of this writ petition under Section 103 of the Constitution of J&K read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to close the only passage leading to the Brick Kiln, lands of the petitioner and other residents of village Patoli Brahmana Tehsil Jammu from Jammu-Akhnoor Road and remove all fencing/encroachments raised over the kucha road leading to the Brick Kiln and land of the petitioner. 2. It has been pleaded that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of about 30 kanals of land in village Patoli Brahmana Tehsil Jammu having purchased by him; that he has also established a Brick Kiln in village Patoli Brahmana under the name and style of S. G. Bricks of which the petitioner is sole proprietor for the last more than 12 years, having been licensed by Tehsildar Jammu. 3. It was next pleaded that the only passage to the Brick Kiln and the land of the petitioner from Jammu-Akhnoor Road is from the khad/nallah, where kucha road is in existence, which besides leading to the Brick Kiln and land of the petitioner, is the only road to the land of the villagers of village Patoli Brahmana Tehsil Jammu. 3. It was next pleaded that the only passage to the Brick Kiln and the land of the petitioner from Jammu-Akhnoor Road is from the khad/nallah, where kucha road is in existence, which besides leading to the Brick Kiln and land of the petitioner, is the only road to the land of the villagers of village Patoli Brahmana Tehsil Jammu. It was alleged that the respondents started fencing the area between the Brick Kiln, the land of the petitioner and Jammu-Akhnoor Road and have started closing the only road leading to the Brick Kiln and land of the petitioner and other residents of the village, with the result that the working of the Brick Kiln has been stopped and access to the Brick Kiln and land of the petitioner is being stopped as there is no other passage to reach there; that he had moved an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu who marked the same to Naib Tehsildar Muthi for inspection and report and also moved another application on 16.03.2004 to Tehsildar Jammu who forwarded the same for report to Patwari Halqa Muthi and the Patwari concerned had reported that the Brick Kiln of the petitioner is working on spot in Khasra No. 237 min of village Patoli Brahmana and had the only passage passing through the land now under the military requisitioned, which the respondents are fencing with barbered wire and with the fencing of the area, the only passage leading to the Brick Kiln of the petitioner and land of the other land holders of the village shall be closed with no other passage. 4. It was claimed that the petitioner and other residents of the village have been enjoying the kucha road from Jammu-Akhnoor Road to their village where more than 300 kanals of land is being cultivated since time immemorial and the respondents are bound to leave the road for the enjoyment of the petitioner and other villagers and have no right to deprive the petitioner of his rights of passage through the road and thereby stop working of the Brick Kiln, which will not only cause loss and injury to the petitioner but also depriving more than 100 persons working in the Brick Kiln of their livelihood violating their fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has further asserted that under the garb of requisition, the respondents have no right to block the old and only passage leading to the Brick Kiln and land of the petitioner and other residents of village Patoli Brahamana Tehsil Jammu, thereby close the establishment of the petitioner depriving him to carry on his business. 5. Pursuant to notice, the respondents filed objections to the writ petition asserting therein that they had requisitioned 115 kanals and 8 marlas of land located at village Patoli Brahmana on 31.12.1976, for the defence purpose by the Army; that the Board for the purpose assembled on 17th November, 1989, completed the proceedings on 19th December, 1989 and forwarded the same to Defence Estate Officer, Jammu; that No Objection Certificate for acquisition of this land was received from J&K Home Department vide letter No. CL-40/89 dated 18.09.1990 and vide No. Ub-74/89-JDA dated 26.04.1994 of the Housing and Urban Development Department; that the land had been earmarked for construction of Kendriya Vidyalya Domana and Training Camp for the army personnel; that the construction of security fence was projected to avoid any encroachment by civilians and the same has been sanctioned and released; that the work of fence has been completed and is under the physical occupation of the Army, having been handed over to it by MES on 20.03.2004. It was specifically pleaded that there was no passage through defence land requisitioned by the Army and the petitioner cannot claim the same as there has never been any passage, nor does it exist as is claimed by the petitioner. 6. The petition was admitted on 25.11.2005 and the counter affidavit was filed by the respondents asserting therein that the petitioner owns a Brick Kiln, which is adjacent to the defence land, however, there is no passage or link road from Jammu Akhnoor passing through the defence land. It is further submitted that there is an existing kacha road from Akhnoor road to Lower Barnai, which is used by the villagers of Lower Barnai including the petitioner who is owner of the Brick Kiln and some photographs were also enclosed in support of the same. It was further pleaded that the claim of the petitioner that the only passage leading to Brick Kiln and the land of the land holders of the village shall be closed as there was no other passage, is incorrect. 7. It was further pleaded that the claim of the petitioner that the only passage leading to Brick Kiln and the land of the land holders of the village shall be closed as there was no other passage, is incorrect. 7. The petitioner in response to the counter affidavit, filed rejoinder thereto asserting therein that there is no approach road to the Brick Kiln from Lower Barnai road and that he had obtained a temporary passage from Sher Singh and others to reach to his Brick Kiln but that too was not feasible with the result that the Brick Kiln has been closed; that the Patwari concerned had made a detailed report showing that there was no alternative road/passage to the Brick Kiln of the deponent except only kacha road leading to the Brick Kiln of the deponent and a public tube well for the residents of the locality. Moreover, the respondents have no right to acquire or requisition the only road leading to the Brick Kiln of the deponent and that the respondents have not paid the compensation to the owners till date whose land has been requisitioned. In a supplementary affidavit, the respondents have pleaded that the petitioner’s Brick Kiln is situated in Khasra No.237 of the village, which has not been disturbed by the respondents. 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondents under the garb of requisition of land for defence purpose, cannot close down a path leading to the village from Jammu-Akhnoor Road which was being used by the petitioner for operating his Brick Kiln in the village. He has made a reference to the report of the revenue officials on an application moved by the petitioner that the petitioner and his co-villagers have no other alternate passage, except the one i.e a kacha road which is being fenced closing the passage. He has further argued that the respondents under no excuse can close a path leading to a village where more than 100 people have their land including the petitioner; that the petitioner’s business of Brick Kiln has suffered badly due to the closure of the pathway from his Brick Kiln to the Jammu-Akhnoor Road. He has further argued that the respondents under no excuse can close a path leading to a village where more than 100 people have their land including the petitioner; that the petitioner’s business of Brick Kiln has suffered badly due to the closure of the pathway from his Brick Kiln to the Jammu-Akhnoor Road. It was thus prayed that the petition be allowed and the respondents be restrained from closing down the path/passage being used by the petitioner, passing through the land allegedly requisitioned by the respondents, from Jammu-Akhnoor Road. 9. Learned CGSC appearing for the respondents, ex adverso, argued that the petitioner except pleading that he was using a kacha road from an open land, for ingress and egress, to his Brick Kiln from Jammu-Akhnoor Road cannot plead land requisitioned by the Army should not be used for the purpose it was requisitioned as the petitioner has no vested right over the path alleged by him. It was denied that there existed any path and that path shown to be used was infact an open land used by the petitioner. He further argued that after requisition of the land, there is an alternate path in the form of link road leading to village Barnai, from which there is a direct access to the petitioner’s Brick Kiln. He has drawn an attention of this Court towards the photographs placed on the file along with supplementary affidavit indicating the location of the petitioner’s Brick Kiln behind the requisitioned land of the respondents, which has access to the Barnai link road. He has further argued that the petitioner has not pleaded any legal right over the path so as to grant him any relief and prayed that the petition be dismissed with costs. 10. What emerges from the pleadings of the parties and the rival submissions, it is clear that the petitioner had established his Brick Kiln in a village away from Jammu-Akhnoor Road and that he had been using an open land as path to reach to Jammu-Akhnoor Road to transport the material from his Brick Kiln. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land in 2003 and thereafter raised an issue with the respondents, whereas the fact of the matter is, the respondents had been transferred the land, by way of requisition way back in the month of November 1989. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land in 2003 and thereafter raised an issue with the respondents, whereas the fact of the matter is, the respondents had been transferred the land, by way of requisition way back in the month of November 1989. The grievance of the petitioner seems to have arisen only when the respondents tried to fence its land for setting up a Kendriya Vidyalya and Training Center for the Army personnel. 11. This is not the case of the petitioner that there was a recorded path in the revenue record and that such a path could not be closed by any of the authorities as user of such a path is the rightful claim of the locals of the area. The petitioner’s Brick Kiln, as per the site plan R-I attached with the supplementary affidavit to the rejoinder, has shown behind the requisitioned land of the respondents, a link road has been shown from NH1A Jammu-Akhnoor Road to Lower Barnai and to Netra Kote from which access can be had to the Brick Kiln of the petitioner. The petitioner has also admitted in his rejoinder that he had obtained a temporary passage from Sher Singh and others to reach his Brick Kiln from Lower Barnai road. In this situation of the matter, when the petitioner has no vested right or claim over a passage shown to be passing through the military area requisitioned by the respondents, in absence of any recorded common pathway and also to the fact that the petitioner has an alternate access to the link road, there seems no merit in his writ petition, so as to grant any relief. 12. For the foregoing discussion and the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition filed by the petitioner is found to be without any merit and substance and is liable to be dismissed. 13. The petition is, thus, dismissed along with pending application(s). 14. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.