High Court Dismisses Writ Claiming Public Road Status Over 0.21 Acre, Holds Title Dispute Fit for Civil Court

A Single‑judge bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti heard a writ petition challenging revenue action allegedly converting a village road of 0.21 acres in Sy. No. 274, Althurthi village, Podhalakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, into private land. The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Gram Panchayat to protect the road and restraining the Tahsildar from handing over the land to a neighbouring pattadar.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that a declaration of title was not appropriate in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and that the registered sale deed and updated revenue records prima facie supported the respondent’s title. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to produce cogent material to establish an easementary right of access or to demonstrate that the land in question was government poramboke used as a public road. The Court recalled earlier authority that disputes over prescriptive rights and title normally required evidence and determination in a civil forum: “Section 15 of Indian Easements Act, 1882 ... In the case of Government land, one should prove that he/she has been using the access to the land for thirty years.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, normally will not declare title in respect of a particular land. The declaration of title, if any, would be made by a competent Civil Court after recording evidence. The registered document filed by the 5th respondent, coupled with the RSR filed by the petitioner and other revenue records filed by the 5th respondent, in the considered opinion of this Court, prima facie, supports the plea of the 5th respondent vis-à-vis title to the property. This court is conscious that no declaration can be granted and hence no declaration was made in that regard. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any infringement of the right and the corresponding obligation on the part of the officials. There are no merits in the writ petition, and the writ petition is devoid of merits; hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.”

Background
The petitioner, Chennuru Krishna Reddy, alleged that his ancestors had a homestead and used a connecting road that lay partly in Sy. Nos. 273 and 274; he claimed an extent of Ac.0.21 cents in Sy. No. 274 was government land used as a road (noted as “Kalidari” in the RSR) and that the Tahsildar sought to convert or hand over that strip to the 5th respondent, a neighbouring landowner and medical practitioner, who had purported title to adjoining patta land. The petitioner lodged objections with the RDO and Tahsildar in June 2021, sought revenue records under the RTI route, and obtained an interim status quo order on 28.10.2021 which was extended until further orders.

Respondents, including the Tahsildar, Gram Panchayat and the 5th respondent, produced revenue records and a registered sale deed dated 06.10.1966 and contended that the larger extents in Sy. Nos. 273 and 274 were patta land of the 5th respondent’s family and that no Gram Panchayat road of Ac.0.21 cents was demarcated as government poramboke in RSR. The Tahsildar’s affidavit asserted that only Ac.0.07 cents in S. No. 273 and Ac.0.22 cents in S. No. 274 constituted the relevant public passage and denied any conversion of Government poramboke into private land.

The Court examined the RSR entries, the registered deed and pattadar records filed by the parties, observed absence of cogent evidence from the petitioner to prove an easementary right or long‑standing public use sufficient to confer prescriptive rights, and relied on precedent holding that claims of access over government land for thirty years required proof in an appropriate civil remedy. The Court declined to adjudicate title in writ proceedings, found the respondent’s prima facie title supported by documents, dismissed the writ petition for lack of merits, ordered no costs, and closed pending miscellaneous petitions.

Case Details:
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 24801 of 2021 
Case Title: Chennuru Krishna Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): T. Lakshmi Narayana
For the Respondent(s): GP for Revenue; GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development; Ch. C. Krishna Reddy; Mattegunta Sudhir, Standing Counsel for Z.P.Ps, M.P.Ps, Gram Panchayats

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 47