Banks Constitute Integral Part Of Waterbody, Any Encroachment Violates Public Trust Doctrine: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Court was dealing with a writ petition whereby the petitioners challenged the proposed closure of a 30-foot road, which the State asserted was not an existing road but formed part of Zurreru Vagu (the Vagu), reserved for natural water flow and flood protection.

Dismissing the petition, Justice Subba Reddy Satti explained that Public Trust Doctrine postulates that certain natural resources— which are held by the State in trust for public benefit— cannot be transferred, alienated or permitted to be used in a manner that undermines public interest, and the State must sustain these resources for the present and future generations. Noting that Article 51A(g) of the Constitution casts a fundamental duty on citizens to protect natural resources, the Single Judge explained:

“The banks of the Vagu need to be strengthened from time to time. Unless the banks are strengthened, it endangers the lives of the people in the vicinity during the floods or whenever there is an overflow of the water due to certain climatic conditions. The water bodies, beds, bunds and banks cannot be alienated, encroached upon or diverted for private or non-public purposes. The banks/bunds of tanks are an integral part of the water body. Any encroachment, construction or regularisation on the tank banks violates the Public Trust Doctrine.”

BACKGROUND

In their writ petition, the petitioners had challenged the action of the State authorities in trying to close the 30-foot road, which was allegedly used by the petitioners for roughly seven decades, as illegal and arbitrary.

The authorities, while denying the existence of any road as per the Gram Panchayat records, argued that petitioners were attempting to stop the ongoing flood protection works of the Vagu, despite having a separate route to reach their respective houses. Thus, requesting an additional route by encroaching upon the Vagu was considered objectionable. Additionally, they submitted that a survey conducted by the Tahsildar suggested that the Panchayat Raj Department was constructing cement concrete drainage canals parallel to the Vagu to prevent drainage water from flowing directly into it, and steps had already been taken to enter into an agreement with the contractor for construction of flood protection bunds in the Vagu.

Marking several drawbacks in the pleadings, the Court noted that petitioners had merely asserted the existence of a particular road, however, had failed to file supporting documents to demonstrate its existence. The photographs submitted failed to establish the existence of the road, and the petitioners also failed to reply to the specific plea that the right bank of the Vagu was being used as an unauthorised track. In this premise, the Court noted,

"Unless the petitioners demonstrate the existence of the road by placing cogent material, in the teeth of the averments in the counter affidavit, this Court is handicapped from recording a positive finding in that regard vis-à-vis issuance of a Mandamus. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate their legal right. The petitioners, in the considered opinion of this court, did not disclose correct facts and approached the Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction. Thus, this court concludes that the petitioners approached this with unclean hands and hence they are not entitled to equitable and discretionary relief. In the facts and circumstances, this court applies the doctrine of “suprresio vari and expressio falsi‟.

Emphasising on the significance of pleadings in a writ affidavit, the Court observed that pleadings are essential to adjudicate a dispute judiciously and effectively, and they play a pivotal role in determining the issues. “Unlike a plaint in a Civil suit, in a writ petition (affidavit) all facts must be pleaded by annexing the relevant documents. Since the petitioners are invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction, the burden is heavier than in a Civil Suit. The statement in a writ affidavit is a statement of fact on oath, and hence it must be strictly proved. The pleading should contain the right and its violation, and how the violation is illegal.”, the Court added.

Thus, in the absence of cogent material proving the existence of the alleged road, and in consonance with the Public Trust Trust, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 24152 of 2025

Case Title: SANKULA NAGARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Click Here To Read/Download Order