P. V. Lay Kumar Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2503 AP

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

                                        ****
                             W.P. No.28907 of 2014

Between:

P.V.Lav Kumar Reddy
S/o Venkatachalapathi Reddy, aged about 31 years
Occupation : Cultivation
R/o Gunjarlapalle Village
Santhipuram Mandal, Chittoor District                   .... Petitioner

                                        AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department
Secretariat, Hyderabad, and seven others               .... Respondents


DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 13.06.2022


SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

   may be allowed to see the judgment?                 Yes / No


2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

   marked to Law Reporters / Journals?                 Yes / No


3. Whether His Lordship wish to

   see the fair copy of the Judgment?                  Yes / No




                                                   _________________________
                                                   U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
                                                2




           * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

                               + W.P. No.28907 of 2014


% 13.06.2022

Between:

P.V.Lav Kumar Reddy
S/o Venkatachalapathi Reddy, aged about 31 years
Occupation : Cultivation
R/o Gunjarlapalle Village
Santhipuram Mandal, Chittoor District                          .... Petitioner

                                          AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department
Secretariat, Hyderabad, and seven others                     .... Respondents


! Counsel for Petitioner                  : Sri D.Krishna Murthy

^ Counsel for Respondents                 : Sri K.Raghuveer, Government
                                            Pleader for Higher Education for
                                           respondents 1, 2 and 6 to 8

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

   1)   2016 (5) ALT 5
   2)   MANU/AP/0742/2021
   3)   AIR 1953 Mad 279 = MANU/TN/0155/1953
   4)   19 Mad 154
   5)   MANU/SC/0063/2009 = (2009) 3 SCC 571
   6)   MANU/AP/0048/1969 = AIR 1969 AP 136
   7)   MANU/TN/0202/1984 = AIR 1984 Mad 292
   8)   17 Ind Cas 22
   9)   (1998) III MLJ 537 = MANU/TN/1215/1998
   10)    MANU/WB/0347/1928 = AIR 1929 Cal 542
   11)    MANU/UP/0064/1970 = AIR 1970 All 404
   12)    (2015) 6 ABR 29 = MANU/MH/0499/2015
                                         3




13)   MANU/KA/0136/1982 = AIR 1982 Kant 314
14)   MANU/KE/0129/2006 = 2006 (2) KLT 636
15)   MANU/BH/0032/1988 = AIR 1988 Pat 216
16)   2002 (1) SCC 134 = MANU/SC/0667/2001
17)   AIR 1967 SC 993 = MANU/SC/0275/1966
18)   (2004) 4 SCC 460 = MANU/SC/0307/2004
19)   2015 (15) SCC 1 = MANU/SC/1041/2015
20)   MANU/AP/0742/2021
                                           4




          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
                          Writ Petition No.28907 of 2014

ORDER:

The petitioner prays for a mandamus declaring the inaction of the

respondents 6 to 8 in implementing the orders of the respondents 2 & 3 in

Rc.No.5545/B3/2013 dated 31.07.2014 and Roc.E5/9839/2012 dated 22.07.2014

as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents 6 to 8 to

implement the aforesaid orders.

2. The petitioner's case succinctly is thus:

(a) The petitioner is the resident of Gunjarlapalle Village, Santhipuram

Mandal, Chittoor District. He owns land of Ac.1.18 cents in Sy.No.120/2 of 28,

Gundisettipalle Village of Santhipuram Mandal. There is a Cart Track existing in

Sy.No.120/4 and 120/6 from times immemorial to reach the agricultural lands of

the petitioner and others. The said Cart Track is recorded in the Village Map also.

(b) While so, the Government have alienated the land in Sy.No.120/4 and

120/6 in favour of the Zilla Parishad / respondent No.8 for construction of High

School and Junior College. The 8th respondent accordingly constructed High

School and Junior College in Sy.No.120/4 and 120/6 encroaching upon the

existing age old Cart Track. Due to such encroachment now there is no other way

to approach the lands of the petitioner and others.

(c) The petitioner submitted an application to 5th respondent on 11.04.2011

requesting to conduct survey of the land in Sy.No.120/4 and 120/6 and demarcate

the boundaries to the existing Cart Track, High School and Junior College. In turn,

the 5th respondent directed the Mandal Surveyor to conduct survey and submit

report regarding the status of the Cart Track. The Mandal Surveyor accordingly

conducted survey and submitted report to 5th respondent stating that there was a

Cart Track existing in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.120/4 and that a school

building was constructed encroaching upon the Cart Track. Thereafter the 5th

respondent inspected land and submitted report to the District Collector, Chittoor /

3rd respondent vide proceedings in Roc.A/93/2011 dated 27.04.2011 stating that

the school building and Junior College were constructed encroaching upon existing

Cart Track. He further stated that the Cart Track can be restored by providing 12

feet width approach road in the land in between the High School building and

Junior College building for which the permission of the District Educational

Officer, Chittoor / 2nd respondent is required. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent in his

letter in L.Dis.E5/4190/11 dated 09.05.2011 instructed 5th respondent to address

letter to 2nd respondent seeking permission to provide Cart Track through the land

in Sy.No.120/4. Accordingly, the Tahsildar addressed letter to the D.E.O. vide

Roc.B/93/2011 dated 09.07.2012 for necessary permission. The 2nd respondent has

granted permission to provide Cart Track and addressed letter to the Mandal

Educational Officer, Santhipuram Mandal / 7th respondent informing about the

grant of permission for providing Cart Track to a width of 12 feet through the land

in between the High School building and Junior College building. However, the

7th respondent has not taken any action for providing the Cart Track as per the

permission accorded by the 2nd respondent.

(d) That apart, the Sub-Collector / 4th respondent also inspected the site and

submitted report to the 3rd respondent vide his office Roc.B1/9516/2012 dated

31.05.2013 requesting the District Collector, Chittoor to direct 2nd respondent and

the 5th respondent to take steps to restore the Cart Track. The 3rd respondent vide

his office letter Roc.E5/9839/2012 dated 01.07.2013 directed the 2nd respondent to

inspect the land and take necessary steps to restore the Cart Track. He also issued

a reminder to 2nd respondent to take action in the matter. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd

respondent addressed letter to the Head Master, Government High School and 6th

respondent to take action in the matter immediately and report. However, no

action has been taken so far. The inaction on the part of the respondents 6 to 8 is

arbitrary and illegal and thereby the petitioner and other villagers are suffering

great inconvenience due to closure of the long existed Cart Track. There is no

other alternative way to approach their fields.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. The 2nd respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition and contended

thus:

(a) The District Collector, Chittoor vide proceedings in Rc.No.E5/9839/2012

dated 22.07.2014 ordered the 2nd respondent to inspect the site of the Government

High School and Government Junior College, Santhipuram along with Tahsildar,

Santhipuram and submit report on sparing of 12 feet vacant land of the

Government educational institutions in order to restore Cart Track in Sy.No.120/4

in Gudisettipalle Village. Pursuant to the said order, the 2nd respondent instructed

the 6th respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.5455/B3/2014 to inspect the site

along with the respondents 5 & 7. Accordingly, the 6th respondent inspected the

site along with respondents 5 & 7 and submitted his report vide letter in

Rc.No.247/DYEO/CTR/2014 dated 06.08.2014. They submitted the report on the

non-feasibility of sparing of land to lay Cart Track as the petitioner claimed the

Cart Track without any legal right.

(b) It is submitted that the petitioner purchased the agricultural land nearby

the Government High School, Santhipuram and Government Junior College,

Santhipuram. Prior to his purchase of the land, already the school and college

were established under Government sector in Sy.Nos.120/5 and 120/6. The

Government have constructed educational institution which covers an extent of

Ac.0.17 cents of the Government land and not belonging to the petitioner. The

Government have established the High School and Junior College to cater the

needs of public during the year 1998 by alienating the land in Sy.Nos.120/4 and

120/6 since the public was not using the said land for Cart Track purpose. At the

time of alienation of the land and construction of the school and college, no one

has objected and the public have cooperated for establishment of the school. Thus,

the claim of the petitioner is nothing but to fulfill his personal ends.

(c) It is further submitted that sixteen years after the establishment of the

school, the petitioner has purchased the land in Sy.No.120/2 and started demanding

to provide Cart Track in Government land. No other agriculturist has demanded

the restoration of old government track. At present the villagers are using Cart

Track through Mattam Road. The Tahsildar, Santhipuram in consideration of the

request of the petitioner, has conducted survey in Sy.Nos.120/4 and 120/6 and sent

the proposal to 3rd respondent to spare 12 feet width approach road in the land

between High School Building and Junior College building. The 3rd respondent in

L.Dis.No.E5/4190/11 dated 09.05.2011 directed the 5th respondent to approach and

get permission of the 2nd respondent to provide such a Cart Track. The 5th

respondent has submitted said fact to 2nd respondent in his letter No.B/93/2011

dated 09.07.2012. The 2nd respondent in his turn vide proceedings No.B/93/2011

dated 09.07.2012 has accorded permission to 7th respondent for providing Cart

Track. However, the Chairman of the School Education Committee and public

have opposed the decision to provide cart track in between the school and college

building. The petitioner has entered school premises on the night of 20.10.2012

with JCB and demolished some part of the compound wall and cut down some

trees in order to provide cart track in the Government land as against the decision

of the Chairman of the School Education Committee. The Head Master of the

Government High School made a complaint against the petitioner in Rallabudugur

Police Station, Santhipuram Mandal, Chittoor District on 21.10.2012. The Sub

Inspector of Police, Rallabudugur registered FIR No.69/2012 dated 21.10.2012 and

the case is under investigation. The public revolted against the demolition of the

school compound. Consequent to the incident, the 2nd respondent in his

proceedings No.6492/B3/2012 dated 21.10.2012 has issued instructions to the

Head Master, Government High School, Santhipuram and Mandal Educational

Officer, Santhipuram not to take further action in providing cart track in between

the school and college building and protect the school land. It is further submitted

that the 4th respondent in his letter No.B1/9516/2012 dated 31.05.2013 submitted

report to 3rd respondent to take steps to provide cart track in between the school

and college building. In turn, the 3rd respondent in his letter in

Roc.No.E5/9839/2012 dated 01.07.2013 directed the 2nd respondent to inspect the

land and submit his report. The 2nd respondent asked 6th respondent in his

proceedings in Rc.No.5455/B3/2013 dated 31.07.2014 instructed him to visit the

school and submit his report. The respondents 6 & 7 visited the school on

02.08.2014 and submitted their report vide letter No.247/DYEO-CTR/2014 dated

06.08.2014. The 2nd respondent in his letter in Rc.No.5455/B3/2013 dated

14.08.2014 has submitted report to 3rd respondent stating that it is not possible to

provide cart track in between the Government High School and Junior College,

Santhipuram since the students, Villagers and Chairman, School Education

Committee have expressed that if the path is provided to him, there will be much

disturbance to the school and college. It is further submitted that the villagers are

not demanding for restoration of the cart track and no grievance was expressed by

them on account of construction of the school building, except the petitioner for his

personal needs. All the villagers and cultivators are utilizing the existing cart track

from Mattam Road and every cultivator using the said Mattam road leading to

fields and cultivating their lands except the petitioner. The Head Master and

Chairman of the School Education Committee have stated that in case the

petitioner's request is considered, it will be very difficult to conduct classes in

peaceful atmosphere and there is a possibility of disturbance from anti social

elements also. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

4. The petitioner filed reply against the counter of 2nd respondent. It is stated

that even according to the 2nd respondent, he addressed letter in Roc.B/93/2011

dated 09.07.2012 to the M.E.O, Santhipuram Mandal intimating about granting of

permission for providing cart track to a width of 12 feet through the land in

between the High School and Junior College buildings. As such, the 2nd respondent

cannot now contend that cart track cannot be given. It is further submitted that

there is absolutely no difficulty in providing cart track in between the school

building and junior college building. If the adjoining Highway is not causing

disturbance for the functioning of the school and college, the cart track also cannot

be said to be the source of disturbance.

(a) It is further submitted that the school and junior college buildings were

constructed encroaching upon the existing age old cart track with a promise to the

affected farmers that they would be provided alternate cart track in between the

two buildings. The farmers believing the promise of the authorities, kept quite

when the cart track was encroached. The petitioner is concerned, he purchased the

land from his vendor A.M.Gangappa S/o. Munaswamy on 10.02.2011. His vendor

has informed him that the cart track will be provided through the vacant land lying

in between the school building and the junior college building. On such

information, the petitioner purchased the land. Added to it, the report of the

revenue authorities established that there was an age old cart track existing in

Sy.No.120/4. In fact, the 2nd respondent accorded permission for providing

alternate cart track in between the high school and junior college building vide

letter dated 09.07.2012. Now, the 2nd respondent cannot take U turn and say that

nobody except the petitioner is claiming the cart track. The report dated

31.05.2013 of the 4th respondent to 3rd respondent clearly shows that the buildings

were constructed encroaching upon the cart track existing in Sy.No.120/4 and it is

causing inconvenience to the petitioner as well as other Ryots to reach their

respective fields and also to reach Kuppam - Palamanair main road.

(b) The counter allegations that the public opposed to provide alternate cart

track through the land in between school and college buildings is false. It is also

false to allege that the petitioner trespassed into the school premises on 20.10.2012

and demolished compound wall with JCB. On the other hand, the Head Master

filed a false complaint against the petitioner and the petitioner takes steps for

quashing the FIR. The report of the Sub-Collector, Chittoor dated 31.05.2013 and

the report of the Deputy Education Officer, Chittoor dated 06.08.2014 would

clearly show that the compound wall was demolished by the school authorities for

the purpose of facilitating the Rig mounted vehicle to enter the compound to dig a

bore well. The petitioner did not demolish the compound wall. The closure of the

age old cart track causes much hardship to the petitioner and others.

Hence, the writ petition may be allowed.

5. Heard Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri

K.Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education representing the

respondents 1, 2 and 6 to 8.

6. Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for petitioner would strenuously

argue that the petitioner purchased Ac.1.18 cents of land in Sy.No.120/2 of 28,

Gundisettipalle Village and abutting to this land there was Government land in

Sy.Nos.120/5 and 120/6 wherein a Cart Track was in existence from time

immemorial which was used by the cultivators to reach their lands from the

village. Subsequently the Government have alienated land in Sy.Nos.120/5 and

120/6 to the Zilla Parishad, Chittoor District for construction of High School and

Junior College and accordingly, while constructing the Junior College and High

School, about Ac.0.17 cents of the Cart Track was encroached and a compound

wall for the High School and Junior College was constructed and thereby the

petitioner and other cultivators have been suffering a lot, for, they do not have

other way to reach their lands. Learned counsel while denying the counter

allegations that none of the villagers have ever raised any objection except the

petitioner after 16 years, would submit that in fact when the school and college

were under construction, the villagers of Santhipuram village have raised objection

that the raising of buildings would intercept the Cart Track. On that the officials

have promised that sufficient space would be left in between the school and

college building to pave way for Cart Track for its smooth user by the public. On

such promise only the villagers have not taken any legal action against the

construction of school and college. In that view and as the public have every right

to use every inch of the public way the officials cannot efface the same even for

the alleged public purpose. He would submit that public way has to be maintained

for all the time for the user of the public and there can be no second thought about

it. To buttress his argument he relied upon Brothers Service Station (Indian Oil

Dealer) rep. by its Managing Partner G.S.Narayana v. Vijayawada Municipal

Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner1 and Gadde Venkata Lakshmamma v.

The State of Andhra Pradesh2.

7. In oppugnation, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education Sri

K.Raghuveer would argue that the land in Sy.Nos.120/5 & 120/6 is a Government

DKT patta land. On the western side of this land Kuppam - Palamanair main road

is situated. To the eastern side of the Government land, the land covered by

Sy.No.120/2 is situated. To its further east the land covered by Sy.No.120/4 is

situated. He would submit that in the year 1987 the Government have sanctioned

Government High School for the convenience of students of Santhipuram and

surrounding villages vide G.O.Ms.No.555. The Government allotted an extent of

Ac.1.56 cents in Sy.No.120/5 and Ac.0.95 cents in Sy.No.120/6 for construction of

school building, playground and Junior College. In the year 1998, school building

and junior college were constructed and compound wall was also constructed

around them.

(a) Learned Government Pleader would further submit that Sy.No.120/2

is concerned, the present writ petitioner purchased Ac.1.18 cents in the year 2011.

Long prior, the entire land in Sy.No.120 was vacant and lying between Mattam

Village and Kuppam - Palamanair Highway road. As such the cultivators in order

2016 (5) ALT 5

MANU/AP/0742/2021

to reach their lands abutting to the Kuppam - Palamanair road, were taking their

carts from Mattam village through the said vacant land and gradually a Cart Track

was formed in Sy.Nos.120/4, 5 & 6. Since the Government had not put in use the

land in Sy.Nos.120/5 and 120/6, it acquiesced the act of the villagers. However,

the Government have neither declared the used cart track as a public rasta nor took

up maintenance activities treating it as a public road. He would reiterate that the

Government just did not object public using a part of the land in Sy.Nos.120/5 & 6

as a Cart Track since the said land was not otherwise used. However, considering

the request of the local elders and representations of the politicians of the

Santhipuram Mandal, the Government have alienated the land in Sy.Nos.120/5 & 6

in favour of 8th respondent for construction of High School and Junior College and

accordingly, High School and college buildings were constructed in the year 1988

and those buildings and the appurtenant land were enveloped with the compound

wall all around. None of the public belonging to the Gunjarlapalle village and

other surrounding villages of Santhipuram Mandal raised any objection for

allotment of the land in Sy.Nos.120/5 & 6 for construction of the buildings and

subsequent construction of compound wall and thereby totally closing the so-called

cart track. On the other hand, the public having known that they have no authority

to claim right of way on one hand and that after a long time they got High School

and college, did not make any protest for closure of the so-called cart track. He

would thus emphasize that since 1998 the right of easement if any was

extinguished. He would further submit that the petitioner purchased Ac.1.18 cents

in Sy.No.120/2 only in 2011 i.e., long after the Cart Track was closed. He would

argue that the conduct of the public would show that they abandoned the alleged

right of easement if any in the year 1998 itself. The petitioner who purchased the

land in 2011 i.e., long after the aforesaid incidents cannot claim any right over the

extincted easement. Therefore, the present writ petition is devoid of merit either

on facts or in law and the citations relied upon by the petitioner have no relevancy.

He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

8. The points for consideration are as under:

(1) What is the nature of the legal right if any exercised by the public in the subject Cart Track?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek for restoration of the Cart Track after a long lapse of 16 years of its closure?

(3) To what relief?

9. Point No.1: Unlike the Laissez Faire oriented State, in a welfare State, the

Government performs multi tasks for achieving the welfare of the public. Not

confining itself to protect the nation against external aggression, looking after the

foreign trade and laying the foreign policies, minting currency, legislating laws, a

welfare State undertakes vibrant spectrum of activities. It creates the infrastructure

like building the Dams, Ports, Railway Stations, setting up industries,

commissioning Education Institutions, Hospitals, generating employment, taking

care of education, health, recreational facilities of its citizens and so on. To

perform all these activities effectively, the Government at various levels, such as

Panchayat, Municipality, Corporation and State, acquires properties such as natural

resources and national wealth and maintains the same. The legal rights of the

public, qua the aforesaid assets in the hands of the State, are broadly of two types.

(a) Dedicated public property vis-à-vis Doctrine of Public Trust : First

type is concerned, the State sometimes dedicates certain properties at its disposal to

public for their use. For instance, it lays roads, constructs bridges and Flyovers for

passage of the public; it constructs hospitals, Government offices for discharging

various public works; creates parks, museums, libraries and other resorts and

throws open to the public. In such instances, concerned assets or properties in the

eye of law will belong to the citizens of the nation but vest in the State for due

maintenance. The State holds such properties under the Doctrine of Trust. For

instance, if a National Highway is constructed and dedicated to public, the

members of public are considered to be the collective owners of the surface and the

sub-soil whereas the said Highway vests in the concerned department of the State

for proper maintenance as per the statutory rules. The public will have a right over

every inch of the property for their use, subject to the regulations laid down by the

concerned authority. Thus, in case of dedication of a property to the public for its

use, the public will be considered as owners under law and the question of

easementary right at such instance does not arise since there will be no dominant

and servient heritages in it.

10. The conceptual difference between England and India, relating to the nature

of the right exercised by the public over the public properties, particularly, public

highways has been extensively dealt with in the case of C.S.S. Motor Service,

Tenkasi v. The State of Madras3. In that case, the High Court of Madras was

inter alia dealing with the prime question as to whether the citizen is entitled to ply

transport vehicles for hire on public streets as a matter of right protected by Article

19(1)(g) of Constitution of India as contended by the petitioners or was it only a

privilege but not a right falling under the said Article as contended by the

respondents. In that context, the Division Bench speaking through Justice

Venkatarama Ayyar, had comprehensively dealt with the aspect of right of way of

the public with reference to England and India. It recorded the contentions of the

respondents that public pathways vest in the State and the only right of the citizen

over them is to pass and re-pass and the State as their owner, has a right to control

AIR 1953 Mad 279 = MANU/TN/0155/1953

their use in such a manner as they decide and that no citizen can claim a right to

carry on business there except to the extent that the Government might permit.

The Division Bench also recorded the traverse reply of the petitioners quoting

passages from Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol.16, Page 185 to argue that the

right over the Highways as dealt with in England in feudalistic manner to the effect

that Crown has always been the owner of the highways and they were being used

by the public to pass and re-pass, was not the common law of India. The

petitioners cited Municipal Commissioners of Madras v. Sarangapani

Mudaliar4, wherein it was observed thus:

"The English maxim ‗once a highway always a highway' is based on the theory that the property in a highway is in the owner of the soil subject to an easement in favour of the public. In the case before us, this legal fiction peculiar to English Law cannot arise, for there is no question of any easement whatever. The street itself and the soil thereof is vested in the municipality in trust for the public, so that there is no question of dominant or servient heritage."

Considering the above arguments, the Division Bench so far as people's right over

the public streets and roads is concerned, observed thus:

―24. The true position is that all public streets and roads vest in the State but that the State holds them as trustee on behalf of the public. The members of the public are entitled as beneficiaries to use them as a matter of right and this right is limited only by the similar rights possessed by every other citizen to use the pathways. The State as trustees on behalf of the public is entitled to impose all such limitations on the character and extent of the user as may be requisite for protecting the rights of the public generally......xxxx.‖

11. Again in the case of Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v Minguel

Martins5 when the construction of a Hotel blocked the way of people of Panaji to

the Beach, the Supreme Court happened to expound the Doctrine of Public Trust.

19 Mad 154

MANU/SC/0063/2009 = (2009) 3 SCC 571

Referring to various decisions on the subject, the Apex Court, held thus:

―40. We reiterate that natural resources including forests, water bodies, rivers, sea shores, etc. are held by the State as a trustee on behalf of the people and especially the future generations. These constitute common properties and people are entitled to uninterrupted use thereof. The State cannot transfer public trust properties to a private party, if such a transfer interferes with the right of the public and the Court can invoke the public trust doctrine and take affirmative action for protecting the right of people to have access to light, air and water and also for protecting rivers, sea, tanks, trees, forests and associated natural eco- systems.‖

12. In Movva Butchamma v. Movva Venkateswararao6, a Division Bench of

the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was dealing with the issue whether availability

of enough space on the public street to afford a passage to men, cattle and carts

despite the obstructions placed by the defendant could be a ground to deny the

mandatory injunction for removal of obstructions. In that context, the Division

Bench has observed thus:

"5. It is therefore clear that once a highway, the whole and every part of it is a highway and public right of way extends over every inch of the highway. A B C D having been found to be public street the defendant was not entitled to place any obstructions in plots 2(a) and 3(a) which were part of the public street. The defendant cannot be heard to say that the obstructions placed by him cannot be removed so long as he has left a men, cattle and carts to go. As we have said, the right of the public to pass and repass extends over every inch of the manner restrict the right and compel the plaintiff to confine herself to a part of the street of the choice of the defendant. The plaintiff is clearly entitled to the mandatory injunction for removal of obstruction and as rightly pointed out by Mr.Suryanarayana the permanent injunction granted by the lower Courts cannot have its full effect unless the mandatory injunction is granted too."

MANU/AP/0048/1969 = AIR 1969 AP 136

13. In the case of K.Sudarsan v. The Commissioner, Corporation of

Madras7, a learned single Judge of the High Court of Madras was dealing with the

batch of writ petitions seeking mandamus directing the authorities to remove the

hawkers and peddlers from Ranganathan Street, Madras 17 and also the pavements

to render them free from obstruction for vehicles and pedestrians from access to

the petitioners' shops. In that context, after referring several decisions, learned

Judge enunciated certain principles regarding the rights of the public over the

highways and public streets thus:

"19. From the above decisions the following principles emerge. Every member of the public has got a right to pass and repass over a highway or a public street. The said right of the public is a right to pass along the highway for the purpose of legitimate travel, not to be "on it" except to the extent their presence is attributable to a reasonable and proper user of the highway as such. The right of the public to pass and repass extends over the whole width of the highway or the street, in other words, over every inch of the street. A member of the public cannot be compelled to confine himself to a part of the street at the choice of another. The owner of a property adjacent to a highway or a public street has got a right of access to such highway or street at any point at which his land actually touches it. His right of access from his premises to the highway and vice versa is a private right. However, his right to use such highway or public street as soon as he is "on the highway" or the public street becomes a public right........xxx.‖

14. Thus, the above jurisprudential jurimetrix would tell us that if a particular

property i.e., to say a Highway or a public street is dedicated as such to the public

by the State, then the public will have a right to pass and re-pass and make other

lawful use over it. The property vests in the State under the Doctrine of Trust for

its maintenance or upkeep and regulate the use by issuing certain rules. The above

is the law if a particular property is notified and dedicated by the State as a public

street or highway and thrown open to the public.

MANU/TN/0202/1984 = AIR 1984 Mad 292

15. Easementary right : There is a second type of right which the public will

acquire over the property of the State which is not dedicated for public use. That

right is an easement by way of prescription. If a Government property, let us say,

land is not dedicated to public for any particular purpose, but preserved for future

use and in the meanwhile, the members of the public for the beneficial enjoyment

of their properties used the Government land in the manner of open, continuous

and adverse [nec vi, nec clam, nec precario] to the interest of State for a prescribed

period, the public will acquire easementary right over that Government land by

prescription. Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 deals with this right. It

reads thus:

"15. Acquisition by prescription.--Where the access and use of light or air to and for any building have been peaceably enjoyed therewith, as an easement, without interruption, and for twenty years, and where support from one person's land, or things affixed thereto, has been peaceably received by another person's land subjected to artificial pressure or by things affixed thereto, as an easement, without interruption, and for twenty years, and where a right of way or any other easement has been peaceably and openly enjoyed by any person claiming title thereto, as an easement, and as of right, without interruption, and for twenty years, the right to such access and use of light or air, support or other easement shall be absolute.

Each of the said periods of twenty years shall be taken to be a period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit wherein the claim to which such period relates is contested.‖ Explanation I.--Nothing is an enjoyment within the meaning of this section when it has been had in pursuance of an agreement with the owner or occupier of the property over which the right is claimed, and it is apparent from the agreement that such right has not been granted as an easement, or, if granted as an easement, that it has been granted for a limited period, or subject to a condition on the fulfilment of which it is to cease.

Explanation II.--Nothing is an interruption within the meaning of this section unless where there is an actual cessation of the enjoyment by reason of an obstruction by the act of some person other than the claimant, and unless such obstruction is submitted to or acquiesced in for one year after the claimant has notice thereof and of the person making or authorising the same to be made.

Explanation III.--Suspension of enjoyment in pursuance of a contract between the dominant and servient owners is not an interruption within the meaning of this section.

Explanation IV.--In the case of an easement to pollute water, the said period of twenty years begins when the pollution first prejudices perceptibly the servient heritage.

When the property over which a right is claimed under this section belongs to [Government] this section shall be read as if, for the words ―twenty years‖, the words ―[thirty years]‖ were substituted."

(a) As can be seen, ‗right of way' is one such type of easements that can be

acquired by the public over the Government land by an uninterrupted enjoyment of

30 years. People will be the dominant owners and Government will be the servient

owner or servient heritage. The marked difference between first type of right and

second one is that in the first category, the Government makes the dedication of a

property for public use, whereas, in the second type such a dedication is absent but

the Government by its acquiescence for the prescribed period of 30 years, concedes

the right of easement to the public. In the light of such distinction, it has now to be

seen what is the nature of the legal right, if any, was exercised by the public of

Santhipuram and surrounding villages over the subject Cart Track.

16. In the above context, I bestowed my anxious consideration to the pleadings

and material papers filed by either party. Pleadings are concerned, it is the prime

case of the petitioner that a Cart Track has been in existence in Sy.Nos.120/4 and

120/6 of the Government land from time immemorial to reach the agricultural

lands of the villagers. The said Cart Track was recorded in the village map also. It

is his further plea that due to construction of High School and Junior College by

encroaching upon a part of existing Cart Track, there is no other way to approach

the agricultural fields and thereby the petitioner and other villagers are suffering

great inconvenience. It should be noted that except pleading that there used to be a

cart track, it is not his specific plea that the Government have dedicated the said

track as a public street and took up its maintenance such as laying road, providing

lighting and drainage facilities etc. to it. Even in his representation dated

11.04.2011 made to the District Collector, Chittoor / 3rd respondent, he only

mentioned that he has Ac.1.18 cents in Sy.No.120/2 and a Cart Track was running

from Mattam village to Kuppam - Palamanair highway road and in view of

construction of High School and compound wall across the Cart Track, the

petitioner, whose land is only 100 feet away from the main road, could not able to

use the Cart Track. He thus prayed to provide sufficient width of site through the

school compound to enable the tractors to reach the Highway road. On his request,

it appears, the Collector instructed the Tahsildar/5th respondent to conduct enquiry

and submit report. The 5th respondent got surveyed the subject land through

Mandal Surveyor who submitted his report. Basing on it, the Tahsildar submitted a

report in Roc.A/93/2011 dated 27.04.2011 to 3rd respondent. He submitted that the

petitioner's land of Ac.1.18 cents is situated in Sy.No.120/2 in Gundisettipalle

Village. On its western side a Cart Track in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents was

proceeding in Sy.No.120/4 in North South direction. He further stated that in an

extent of Ac.0.95 cents in Sy.No.120/6 the Government school is in existence and

compound wall was constructed around the school across the Cart Track. A part of

the compound wall to an extent of 12 feet was removed by the school authorities

for attending some repairs. It is stated that if the said gap in the compound wall is

left, the Cart Track can be restored and for this purpose, the permission of D.E.O /

2nd respondent is required. Then on the instructions of 3rd respondent, the

Tahsildar addressed letter to 2nd respondent seeking permission. Then the 2nd

respondent in his letter dated 09.07.2012 to the M.E.O. / 7th respondent, on

principle agreed to provide 12 feet width of the site in between the High School

and college buildings for Cart Track.

17. While so, paralelly the Sub-Collector, Madanapalle / 4th respondent who was

instructed by the District Collector, Chittoor to submit a detailed report on the

report of 5th respondent, stated that he made an inspection and found that there was

a Cart Track in Sy.No.120/4 and it was under the encroachment by the school and

college authorities by constructing a compound wall and recently a part of the

compound wall was removed for arrival of bore well digging vehicle. The Sub-

Collector opined that if the vacant land with a width of 12 feet is left by the

authorities in between the college and school land for cart track purpose, it will be

convenient for the petitioner and other ryots. He thus requested the Collector to

instruct 2nd respondent to spare 12 feet vacant land by the school authorities.

Subsequently, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter in Rc.No.5455/B3/2013 dated

14.08.2014 to 3rd respondent wherein he stated that the 6th respondent visited the

school premises on 02.08.2014 in connection with the proposal of sparing Ac.0.40

cents to the petitioner and others for laying Cart Track and during the course of

enquiry, students, teachers and parents have objected for granting permission to lay

the Cart Track through the school and college premises on the ground that the

peaceful atmosphere prevailing therein will be disturbed. The Chairman, School

Education Committee, Santhipuram also disagreed with the proposal for

restoration of the Cart Track and suggested to lay Cart Track outside the college

compound towards Mattam village. The 2nd respondent thus requested 3rd

respondent to drop proposals for restoration of the Cart Track.

18. Thus, above pleadings and correspondence would depict that a Cart Track

was indeed in existence over the Government land between the Mattam village and

Kuppam - Palamanair main road. It was not a dedicated and laid public street and

not being maintained as such by the Government or the local bodies. On the other

hand, while the Government set apart land in Sy.Nos.120/5 & 6 for future use, the

people used to carry their carts through different survey numbers in Sy.No.120

including 120/5 & 6. Due to the acquiescence of the Government and the efflux of

time an easement was created. Therefore, from the above facts and circumstances,

it can be concluded that the villagers of Santhipuram and other surrounding

villages only enjoyed an easementary right over the Government land, but they

have not enjoyed any right on a public street. This point is answered accordingly.

19. Point No.2: This point is concerned, admittedly the Government, by virtue

of G.O.Ms.No.555, have sanctioned High School for Santhipuram and

subsequently allotted an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.120/5 and Ac.0.95 cents

in Sy.No.120/6 for school and college buildings and playground. In the year 1998,

the buildings were constructed and a compound wall was also constructed around

them and thereby the Cart Track through Sy.Nos.120/4, 5 & 6 was totally closed

from 1998 onwards. Though it is contended by the petitioner that the villagers

raised a protest and school authorities promised to provide Cart Track, but the fact

remains that none of the villagers took up legal action in a Court of law for

restoring the Cart Track. Be that it may, it appears, the petitioner purchased

Ac.1.18 cents in Sy.No.120/2 in or around 2011 and gave representations for

providing way for Cart Track through the school and college building and when

ultimately his request was not fructified, he filed present writ petition in the year

2014. In this backdrop, whether he is legally entitled for restoration of extincted

easement after 16 years is the prime question.

(a) Easement by prescription under Section 15 has some notable characters.

Firstly, the person who claims easement must establish that he enjoyed such

easement peacefully, uninterruptedly and as a right for 20 years (30 years against

the Government). Secondly, however length of time a person may enjoy the

easement it will not become absolute unless he establishes such enjoyment before a

Court of law in a legal proceedings filed by him or by other party. Thirdly and

most importantly, the claimant must establish the uninterrupted enjoyment of

easement for 20 years (30 years against Government) which period shall end

within two years next before the institution of the suit. Meaning thereby, in case of

obstruction the claimant shall institute the suit within two years and establish that

he uninterruptedly enjoyed the easementary right for 20 years ending before the

said two years.

20. (i) That the easement by prescription shall necessarily be declared by a

Court of law is no more res integra. In Sultan Ahmad v. Walliullah8, the

Allahabad High Court observed thus:

"3. It seems to me that the result of these findings is that the defence fails. The fifth paragraph of Section 15 of the Easements Act seems to render it impossible to acquire a statutory prescriptive title to an easement unless and until the claim thereto has been contested in a suit. The same has been held with reference to Sections 3 and 4 of the Prescription Act, 1832 [see the judgment of Lord Macnaghten in Colls v. Home and Colonial Stores (1904) A.C. 179 at p. 189 : 73 L.J. Ch. 484 : 90 L.T. 687 : 53 W.R. 30 : 20 T.L.R. 475 and Hyman v. Van den Bergh (1908) 1 Ch. 167 : 77 L.J. Ch. 154 : 98 L.T. 487. The circumstance that Section 3 of the Prescription Act relates to continuous easements only does not appear to affect the matter. The fifth paragraph of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act applies to both continuous and discontinuous easements."

(ii) Similar view was expressed by learned single Judge of the High Court of

Madras in Arjuna Udayar v. Munuswamy Naicker9, wherein upon citing

Goyle's Law of Easements and Licenses - Second Edition 1996, learned Judge

observed that the right of easement by prescription cannot be treated as absolute

unless right has been contested.

(iii) In Siti Kanta Pal v. Radha Gobinda Sen10 the High Court of Calcutta,

considering Section 26 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (Section 26 is in pari materia

with Section 25 of the Limitation Act, 1963) observed thus:

17 Ind Cas 22

(1998) III MLJ 537 = MANU/TN/1215/1998

MANU/WB/0347/1928 = AIR 1929 Cal 542

―2. ........xxxx...... It has been authoritatively held that a title to easement is not complete merely upon the effluxion of the period mentioned in the Statute viz. 20 years and that however long the period of actual enjoyment may be, no absolute or indefeasible right can be acquired until the right is brought in question in some suit, and until it is so brought in question, the right is inchoate only and in order to establish it when brought in question, the enjoyment relied on, must be an enjoyment for 20 years upto within 2 years of the institution of the suit .....xxx....."

(iv) In the same lines of Siti Kanta Pal (10 supra), the High Court of

Allahabad in Madan Lal v. Giri Lal11, observed thus:

"4. ... xxx.... In view of the wording of this section (Sec.15), it cannot be said that enjoyment of an easement for any period of 20 consecutive years will create an absolute right-- the only period of 20 years' enjoyment that will do so is a period ending within two years next before the institution of a suit in which the claim to the easement is contested...xxx..."

(v) In Pashmina Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Subhash

Amolakchand Gandhi12, the High Court of Bombay, with regard to the need for

filing the suit for establishing prescriptive easement and aspects to be considered

therein, has observed thus:

―10 . The plaintiff must show the enjoyment of the easement of 20 years without interruption. The plaintiff must show the right of way. The period of 20 years is the period ending within two years next before the filing of the suit. The interruption contemplated in the first part of section must result in actual cessation of the enjoyment by the obstruction caused by the party contesting. This would be in a suit for claiming acquisition by prescription. (emphasis supplied)"

(vi) In D.Ramanatha Gupta v. S.Razaack13, the High Court of Karnataka

observed thus:

9...xxx...An easement can be acquired by three known Modes: (1) by express or implied grant, (2) by user as of right for the statutory Period of 20 years under the Easements Act, i.e., by prescription and (3) by immemorial user

MANU/UP/0064/1970 = AIR 1970 All 404

(2015) 6 ABR 29 = MANU/MH/0499/2015

MANU/KA/0136/1982 = AIR 1982 Kant 314

based upon the fiction of a lost grant. For the second mode of acquisition of easement under the Easements Act, it is necessary that the required period of 20 years or over must end within 2 years next before the institution of suit wherein the claim to the easement is contested. This necessarily implies that the right of easement by prescription under the Act cannot become absolute unless the right has been contested in a suit (emphasis supplied)."

21. The above judicial pronouncements extrapolate the statutory requirement of

filing a suit to establish the prescriptive easement through a Court of law.

22. The next character is the time limitation within which legal proceedings

have to be initiated to establish the prescriptive easement. Section 15 of the

Easements Act lays down that 20 years period (30 years in case of Government)

shall be taken to be a period ending within two years next before the institution of

the suit wherein the claim to which such period relates is contested. Section 25 of

the Limitation Act which is in pari materia with Section 15 reads thus:

"25. Acquisition of easements by prescription.-- (1) Where the access and use of light or air to and for any building have been peaceably enjoyed therewith as an easement, and as of right, without interruption, and for twenty years, and where any way or water course or the use of any water or any other easement (whether affirmative or negative) has been peaceably and openly enjoyed by any person claiming title thereto as an easement and as of right without interruption and for twenty years, the right to such access and use of light or air, way, water course, use of water, or other easement shall be absolute and indefeasible.

(2) Each of the said periods of twenty years shall be taken to be a period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit wherein the claim to which such period relates is contested.

(3) Where the property over which a right is claimed under sub-section (1) belongs to the Government that sub-section shall be read as if for the words ―twenty years‖ the words ―thirty years‖ were substituted.

Explanation.--Nothing is an interruption within the meaning of this section, unless where there is an actual discontinuance of the possession or enjoyment by reason of an obstruction by the act of some person other than the claimant, and unless such obstruction is submitted to or acquiesced in for one year after the claimant has notice thereof and of the person making or authorising the same to be made."

23. Therefore, it is obvious that a suit for establishing the prescriptive easement

shall be filed within two years of the obstruction caused to such easement. This

aspect has been reiterated in a number of decisions.

(i) In Badariya Madrassa Committee v. Antony Robert Breganza14,

when an action was brought four years after the obstruction of the easement, the

Kerala High Court observed thus:

"8 . Apart from the absence of such pleadings the finding of the trial court on the admitted facts reveals the following facts. The suit was filed only in 1987. In 1983 there was obstruction to the taking of vehicles at the instance of the defendants and Ext. B7 complaint was filed. The plaintiff also admitted that after 1983 till the filing of the suit that obstruction was never removed. Therefore even assuming that there was a right to take vehicles till 1983 it ceased to exist thereafter till 1987 when the suit was filed. Can it be said that "the right existed for twenty years within two years next before the institution of the suit" as required under Section 15 of the Act for the purpose of taking vehicles for which alone the entire 6 feet width of property is claimed. I think not."

(ii) In Arjuna Udayar case (9 supra), the High Court of Madras considering

the fact that the subject channel was obliterated in the year 1974 but the suit was

instituted only in the year 1978 observed that as per the explanation to Section 15

of the Indian Easements Act, the suit must be filed within two years from the date

of interruption and hence, the suit was barred and the plaintiff was not entitled to

declaration sought for.

(iii) In Anu Sundar v. Shiva Naraian Jaiswal15, the High Court of Patna

(Ranchi Bench) held thus:

"23. A plain reading of Section 25 of the Limitation Act shows that the suit ought to be filed within two years next from the date of the obstruction or discontinuance of that right which is claimed as an easementary right and the suit having not been filed within that period prescribed by Clause (2) of Section 25 of

MANU/KE/0129/2006 = 2006 (2) KLT 636

MANU/BH/0032/1988 = AIR 1988 Pat 216

the Limitation Act, it stands defeated and the suit must be held to be barred by law of limitation as laid down in Section 25(2) of the Limitation Act."

24. Thus, the law pellucidly proclaims that an easement by prescription can be

declared by a Court of law if the suit or legal proceedings are brought within two

years from the date of obstruction of easementary right.

25. When the above law is applied to the case on hand, though admittedly a Cart

Track was in existence over the Government land in Sy.Nos.120/4, 5 & 6 and

villagers used the same for some period, there is no cogent material to establish

that they enjoyed for a period of 30 years to claim easement by prescription. Even

assuming that they enjoyed for 30 years, however, such easementary right was

obstructed due to construction of school and college buildings and compound wall

around them in the year 1998. As already stated, none of the villagers have

instituted suit or other legal proceedings within two years from the date of

obstruction for declaration of their easementary right. Therefore, their right to

institute the suit is barred by limitation. The petitioner who is a subsequent

purchaser of the land in Sy.No.120/2 around 2011 cannot have a better claim than

his vendor whose right was already barred. No fresh period of limitation accrues

to him. Hence, I find considerable force in the argument of the learned

Government Pleader for Higher Education that the writ petition is belatedly filed

16 years after cessation of the easementary right and thus, not maintainable. It is

needless to emphasize that Writ Courts loath to grant a relief when the writ petition

is filed after a statutory period of limitation or after a long lapse of arising cause of

auction vide Veeraye Ammal v. Seeni Ammal16, K.V.Rajalakshmaiah Setty v.

2002 (1) SCC 134 = MANU/SC/0667/2001

State of Mysore17, The Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. M.A.Rasheed18, Prabhakar v.

Joint Director Sericulture Department19. Therefore, in my considered view, this

writ petition does not merit consideration.

26. The decisions cited by the petitioner will not help his case. In Brothers

Service Station (1 supra), the facts are that the subject road called Benz Circle

road is a public road in Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. While so, at its some

portion, when the Municipal Corporation proposed to construct Sulabh complex,

the writ petitioners objected on the ground that the proposed construction was

going to narrow the public road to a width of 15 to 20 feet resulting in a bottleneck

at the relevant spot. It is in that context a learned single Judge of this Court having

agreed with the contention of the petitioners that citizens have right to pass through

public road and can make use of every inch of it for ingress and agrees and though

public street vests in the Municipal Corporation, it has only the right to manage

and maintain the same but cannot raise any structures, allowed the writ petition and

directed the Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada to remove the Toilet Complex

constructed at the subject spot. However, in the instant case as already stated, the

subject Cart Track was not a dedicated public street and villagers never exercised

any right over it as a public street. Further, unlike in the cited decision, the

villagers have not brought any legal proceedings while the construction of the

building and the compound wall was under way or immediately thereafter.

27. In Gadde Venkata Lakshmamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh20 also

the facts are different. There is a Donka poramboke leading from Kondapur to

Kavali in Nellore District over which a black topped public road of 20 feet width

AIR 1967 SC 993 = MANU/SC/0275/1966

(2004) 4 SCC 460 = MANU/SC/0307/2004

2015 (15) SCC 1 = MANU/SC/1041/2015

MANU/AP/0742/2021

was laid about 50 to 60 years back. In between the petitioner's land and black

topped road, there is a road margin which is used by the petitioner and others for

ingress and aggress to reach their lands. When the Tahsildar proposed to assign

the site earmarked as road margin to the 5th respondent and his henchmen as house

site, the petitioner filed the writ petition. The learned Judge of this Court relying

upon the Supreme Court judgment in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab [Civil

Appeal No.1132/2013 @ SLP No.3109/2011 held that even if the land is vested

with the Government, it does not mean the villagers lost the right of common usage

which they are entitled for protection. As already stated in that case the subject

property was a road margin of the public street which was used by the petitioner

and others for more than 15 years. In that context, writ petition was allowed.

Further, unlike in the instant case, there was no cessation of right for a long period.

28. It should be noted that the initial approval of 2nd respondent to spare 12 feet

to restore the Cart Track and later reverting back from his proposal in view of the

objection by the students, teachers, parents and School Education Committee will

not create any legal right to petitioner, for restoration of Cart Track, inasmuch as,

he has no legal right to make any claim.

29. Thus, on a conspectus of facts and law, I find no merits in the writ petition.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 13.06.2022 MVA