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 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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 November2023, 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 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. 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 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 May2024 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. 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. 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 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. 23. 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. 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 ). 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? 25. 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? 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 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. 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 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 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. 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 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 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 A1 of the defence land. 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 A1 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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 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. 37. In view of the above discussions, I pass the following: ORDER The writ petitions are dismissed.