Court holds alternative access available to petitioners' lands; disputed easementary rights require factual adjudication beyond writ jurisdiction
In a significant judgment delivered on October 8, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Chinthalapati Venkata Satyanarayana Raju and others challenging the removal of a pathway allegedly used for ingress and egress to their lands located in Jagannadhapuram village, West Godavari district. The petitioners contended that the 25 feet wide and 120 feet long pathway situated in Survey No.187/2 was the only access to their ancestral lands in Survey Nos. 179, 180, and 181 and accused the respondents, including the Gram Panchayat and a voluntary organization, of illegally removing the pathway to merge two water tanks for augmenting the village's drinking water supply.
The respondents refuted the petitioners' claims, asserting that the disputed land was classified as canal poramboke (government poramboke land) designated as a water body and that the petitioners had alternative access routes through existing roads on the eastern, western, and northern sides of their properties. The Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution to integrate the existing Gandhi Cheruvu tank with a newly gifted adjoining water tank to improve water storage capacity for the villagers' benefit.
The Court noted that the existence, location, and legal status of the pathway were seriously disputed and that the petitioners' claim of exclusive easementary rights could not be conclusively adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It emphasized that such disputed questions require detailed factual inquiry based on oral and documentary evidence, which is beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. Further, the Court observed that the petitioners had alternative access to their lands involving a travel distance of approximately half a kilometre, which was not substantial enough to insist on the use of the alleged pathway.
Referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated the principle that public lands like poramboke should be protected for common village use but distinguished the present case on the facts, noting that the controversy centered on disputed easement rights and availability of alternative access rather than unauthorized occupation of public land.
Given the public purpose of augmenting drinking water supply and the absence of clear proof of infringement of enforceable legal rights, the Andhra Pradesh High Court declined to interfere with the Gram Panchayat's resolution and the voluntary organization's activities. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
This judgment underscores the limitations of writ jurisdiction in resolving disputed factual and property rights issues and highlights the balancing of individual property rights with public interest in community resource management.
Bottom Line:
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to adjudicate disputed questions relating to existence of pathway, easementary right, title, possession or physical features of land when such issues require factual determination on oral and documentary evidence - Where alternative access to petitioners' lands was shown to exist and disputed pathway formed part of land classified as canal poramboke/water body sought to be integrated with adjoining tank for augmenting village drinking water supply, relief to protect alleged pathway was refused.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 45 and Section 53 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Board Standing Orders (A.P.)
