The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has dismissed a writ petition filed by landowners seeking to prevent the alleged demolition of a pathway, ruling that disputes regarding the existence of easementary rights are not suitable for determination under the court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy held that when the existence of a right-of-way, its location, and the nature of the land itself are under intense factual dispute between parties, such matters must be adjudicated through a standard trial process involving oral and documentary evidence rather than through a summary process under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The litigation originated from a complaint by three petitioners who asserted ownership of approximately six acres of ancestral property in Jagannadhapuram village, Ganapavaram mandal, West Godavari District. The petitioners claimed that a 25-foot-wide pathway situated in survey number 187/2 had served as their primary means of ingress and egress to their lands for generations. They alleged that the Raj Vegesna Foundation, a non-profit organization, had acted in a high-handed manner by attempting to remove this path while merging two local water bodies—the existing "Gandhi Cheruvu" tank and a newly proposed water storage facility—thereby landlocking their agricultural fields.

The state and local authorities, however, provided a starkly different account of the situation. In their counter-affidavit, the representatives for the Jagannadhapuram Gram Panchayat and the Revenue Department maintained that the disputed area in survey number 187/2 is classified as a "canal poramboke" or a water body, which cannot be diverted or used for any purpose other than its intended function of water storage. Furthermore, the authorities contested the petitioners’ claim of necessity, asserting that the landowners have alternative access points to their properties via existing road networks located to the east, west, and north of their holdings.

The court examined the scope of its power under Article 226, emphasizing that while the writ jurisdiction is essential for overseeing the legality of government and statutory actions, it is not designed to resolve complex questions of title, possession, or long-standing easementary claims. Justice Sreenivasa Reddy observed that the evidence presented by both sides—including conflicting accounts regarding the physical layout of the village and the historical usage of the bund—created a factual controversy that could not be reconciled through mere affidavit-based proceedings.

"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 ," the court noted in its final order. The judge further elaborated on the limitations of the bench in such scenarios, stating, "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."

Development of Water Infrastructure A central pillar of the respondents' defense was the public interest served by the integration of the water bodies. The Raj Vegesna Foundation had purchased approximately 1.77 acres of private land in survey number 187/5 and subsequently gifted it to the Gram Panchayat. The objective, as stated by the respondents, was to create a contiguous, integrated water tank to combat the chronic scarcity of drinking water in Ganapavaram and surrounding revenue villages. The Gram Panchayat had passed a formal resolution on March 29, 2025, to merge the tanks to augment water storage for the upcoming summer season.

The court found that the public benefit of enhanced water security carried significant weight, especially when contrasted with the petitioners' unsubstantiated claim of complete isolation. Upon clarification, the government pleader demonstrated that the alternate routes available to the landowners involve a travel distance of approximately 500 meters, which the court deemed reasonable under the circumstances. The court rejected the argument that the mere previous use of a pathway on government land grants a perpetual easement that precludes public development projects.

The petitioners attempted to rely on previous judicial pronouncements, including findings that "donka poramboke" lands intended for public access should not be assigned to third parties in a way that deprives villagers of their access. However, Justice Sreenivasa Reddy distinguished the present case, noting that the facts did not involve the illegal assignment of public land to a private entity for personal gain. Instead, the land in question was being converted into a public utility asset donated for the collective drinking water needs of the community.

Final Adjudication and Directions The court’s decision effectively vacates the interim status quo orders that had been in place since April 2025, which had temporarily prevented the respondents from proceeding with the integration of the water tanks. The judgment clarifies that these earlier interim measures were based on preliminary observations and did not constitute a final ruling on the merits of the easementary right.

In light of the evidence—or lack thereof—regarding an established, exclusive legal right of way, the court concluded that it could not issue a writ of mandamus as sought by the petitioners. The legal status of the land, the question of whether the bund was demolished or simply submerged through the natural filling of the tanks, and the veracity of the claim regarding the "sole" nature of the access route remain unresolved questions of fact. Consequently, the High Court determined that the petitioners' reliance on the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court was misplaced and that their remedy, if any, lies in a civil court where the nuances of title and easementary claims can be fully explored through the cross-examination of witnesses and an extensive review of land records.

With the petition dismissed, the respondent authorities are no longer legally restrained from continuing the integration of the water bodies. No order as to costs was passed, and all pending miscellaneous petitions connected to the original writ were declared closed by the court.