The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by landowners against attempts to remove a pathway used to access their agricultural lands.

The Court held that disputes over the pathway's existence and location, easementary rights, and the physical features of the land require factual determination, particularly where the respondents deny the pathway's existence and claim that alternative access is available, cannot ordinarily be decided on rival affidavits in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

A Single Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed:

“The existence of an easementary right, particularly when its location, continuous user, nature and necessity are disputed, requires adjudication on the basis of appropriate oral and documentary evidence.

Such competing claims cannot ordinarily be conclusively determined merely on the basis of affidavits in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is primarily intended to examine the legality of governmental or statutory action and is not ordinarily suited to the adjudication of disputed questions relating to title, possession, easementary rights or the physical features of land, particularly where their determination requires an evaluation of oral and documentary evidence.”

The petitioners were landowners claiming a right of access through the disputed pathway. The respondents included State and revenue authorities, the Gram Panchayat and a non-profit voluntary organisation that had purchased and gifted the adjoining land to the Panchayat.

The petitioners owned lands adjoining Gandhi Cheruvu, an existing water body. They claimed that a pathway alongside it had been used by them and other agriculturists from time immemorial to access their lands. They asserted that it was the only available route.

The dispute arose after a non-profit voluntary organisation came forward with a proposal to establish a new water tank for the benefit of the villagers. For this purpose, it purchased private land adjoining Gandhi Cheruvu and gifted it to the Gram Panchayat through a registered gift deed. The Gram Panchayat passed a resolution to merge the proposed tank with Gandhi Cheruvu to augment the village's drinking-water supply.

The petitioners alleged that the organisation attempted to remove the pathway using excavators to merge the two water bodies. They contended that the pathway and the earthen embankment separating the water bodies were situated on Government land and could not be removed or submerged without permission. They also alleged that the Gram Panchayat had permitted the work without convening a Gram Sabha or inviting objections from the villagers, despite its statutory duty to protect the pathway.

Following the alleged attempts to remove the pathway, the petitioners submitted representations to the authorities. They then approached the High Court, challenging the authorities' action in permitting its removal. They sought a direction to protect the pathway, claiming that its removal would deprive them and other villagers of access to their lands.

The revenue authorities and the Gram Panchayat disputed the petitioners' account. They submitted that Gandhi Cheruvu was situated in Government land forming part of a canal. However, as per them, the disputed pathway did not exist on that land. They contended that it was situated on the private land purchased by the organisation and gifted to the Panchayat, where it served as the earthen embankment of Gandhi Cheruvu.

The respondents denied any demolition or removal of the pathway, stating instead that the Gram Panchayat resolved to integrate the two water bodies to enhance summer drinking-water storage. By filling Gandhi Cheruvu with canal water, both the existing embankment and the proposed tank became submerged into a single continuous water body, while the embankment itself remained intact and undisturbed.

The respondents further contended that the petitioners' lands had adequate road access through the adjoining village settlement area, with approach roads available from the eastern, western and northern sides. They also submitted that the petitioners' lands had been converted for non-agricultural purposes long ago.

The petitioners maintained that the pathway has been used "since times immemorial" as ingress and egress to their subject lands, and that if it is removed, their properties would become standalone, causing them to "face many hurdles in order to reach the property" and depriving them of access.

During the proceedings, the Court directed the parties to maintain status quo. Photographs placed before it showed a passage and a pipeline between the two water bodies, which could be laid without disturbing the existing track. The Court clarified that this interim arrangement did not amount to a final determination of the parties' rights.

The Court also sought clarification regarding the distance involved in reaching the petitioners' lands through the alternative road network. The Government Pleader submitted that the distance was not substantial.

On considering the rival submissions, the Court found that the petitioners' claim of an exclusive right to use the disputed pathway could not be accepted merely on the basis of their assertion of long-standing use. The respondents had disputed the pathway's location and claimed that alternative access to the lands was available. The Court also took note of the submissions regarding the embankment remaining undisturbed and becoming submerged after the water bodies were filled.

Holding that the petitioners had failed to establish an enforceable legal right or its infringement warranting interference under Article 226, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Counsel for Petitioners: Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudipati

Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development; Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni; Sri Yerraguntla Koteswara Rao