Introduction:

In Sankula Nagarjuna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 24152 of 2025), the Andhra Pradesh High Court was called upon to decide a dispute that lay at the intersection of environmental protection, public rights over natural resources, and the limits of private convenience, wherein the petitioners challenged the proposed closure of what they described as a 30-foot road allegedly in use for nearly seven decades, while the State contended that the said stretch was not a road at all but formed part of the banks of Zurreru Vagu, a natural watercourse reserved for flood control and natural flow of water; the case assumed wider significance as it required the Court to examine whether banks or bunds of tanks and vagus could be treated as ordinary land capable of being used or encroached upon for access roads, or whether such areas form an inseparable part of water bodies protected under the Public Trust Doctrine, and Justice Subba Reddy Satti, sitting as a Single Judge, used this opportunity to reiterate the constitutional, environmental, and jurisprudential principles governing protection of natural resources, emphasizing that water bodies along with their beds, banks, and bunds are held by the State in trust for the benefit of the public and future generations, and cannot be sacrificed for private convenience under the guise of long usage or implied rights.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners:

The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the State authorities from closing the alleged 30-foot road, asserting that the said road had been in continuous use by them and other local residents for approximately seventy years as the primary means of access to their houses, and that the sudden attempt by the authorities to close the road was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of their right to access and movement; they contended that the road had attained the character of a public road through long-standing usage and that its closure would cause severe hardship, inconvenience, and isolation to the residents, particularly when alternative access routes were either inadequate or impractical; the petitioners further alleged that the action of the State was not backed by due process of law and that the authorities were acting unreasonably in the name of flood protection, without considering the ground realities and the dependence of the local population on the said road, and on this basis sought judicial intervention to protect what they claimed to be an existing and established public pathway.

Arguments on Behalf of the State and Authorities:

The State authorities, on the other hand, categorically denied the existence of any such road in official records, including the Gram Panchayat records, and asserted that the petitioners were attempting to convert the right bank of Zurreru Vagu into an unauthorised access track by misrepresenting facts; it was submitted that the disputed stretch was part of the Vagu itself, reserved for natural flow of water and flood protection purposes, and that permitting its use as a road would severely compromise the safety of the area during floods and overflow conditions; the authorities pointed out that the petitioners already had an alternative route to access their houses and that their insistence on an additional route by encroaching upon the Vagu bund was unjustified and objectionable; reliance was placed on a survey conducted by the Tahsildar, which revealed that the Panchayat Raj Department was undertaking construction of cement concrete drainage canals parallel to the Vagu to prevent sewage and drainage water from flowing directly into the water body, and that steps had already been initiated to execute flood protection works, including the construction of bunds through an agreement with a contractor, and any interference by the petitioners would obstruct vital public works aimed at safeguarding lives and property; it was further argued that environmental protection and flood management constitute compelling public interest, which must prevail over individual claims based on unsubstantiated assertions of long usage.

Court’s Judgment and Reasoning:

After examining the pleadings, materials on record, and the rival submissions, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, delivering a strongly worded judgment underscoring the inviolability of water bodies and their ancillary structures under the Public Trust Doctrine; Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed that the doctrine postulates that certain natural resources such as rivers, streams, tanks, and their banks are held by the State as a trustee for the benefit of the public at large and future generations, and therefore cannot be transferred, alienated, encroached upon, or permitted to be used in a manner that undermines public interest; the Court emphasized that banks and bunds of tanks and vagus are not incidental or separable features but constitute an integral part of the water body itself, serving crucial functions such as flood control, strengthening of embankments, and protection of surrounding habitations, and unless these banks are periodically strengthened, lives and properties in the vicinity are put at serious risk during floods or extreme climatic events; the Judge categorically held that any encroachment, construction, or regularisation on tank banks or bunds amounts to a direct violation of the Public Trust Doctrine, and such actions cannot be legitimized on the basis of convenience or alleged long-standing use; the Court further invoked Article 51A(g) of the Constitution, reminding citizens of their fundamental duty to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and observed that instead of safeguarding water bodies, the petitioners were attempting to appropriate part of a Vagu for private access, contrary to constitutional values; critically analysing the pleadings, the Court found several serious deficiencies, noting that the petitioners had merely asserted the existence of a road without producing any cogent documentary evidence such as revenue records, Panchayat resolutions, or official maps to substantiate their claim, and that the photographs filed were insufficient to establish the existence of a legally recognised road; significantly, the Court observed that the petitioners failed to specifically rebut the State’s plea that the alleged road was in fact an unauthorised track on the right bank of the Vagu, and in the absence of proof, the Court held that it was handicapped from recording any positive finding in favour of the petitioners for issuance of a writ of mandamus; the Court reiterated that a writ of mandamus can be issued only when a legal right is clearly established and its violation demonstrated, and in the present case, the petitioners failed on both counts; going a step further, the Court held that the petitioners had not approached the Court with clean hands, having suppressed material facts and attempted to project an unauthorised use as a lawful right, and therefore were not entitled to equitable or discretionary relief under Article 226; applying the doctrine of suppressio veri and expressio falsi, the Court concluded that the petitioners had selectively stated facts to suit their case while concealing the true nature of the land; the judgment also contained an important exposition on the significance of pleadings in writ jurisdiction, with the Court observing that unlike civil suits, writ petitions require complete, accurate, and truthful disclosure of all relevant facts supported by documents, as statements in a writ affidavit are statements on oath and the burden on the petitioner is heavier due to the extraordinary nature of the jurisdiction invoked; the Court stressed that pleadings must clearly disclose the right claimed, the manner of its violation, and the illegality involved, failing which the writ court cannot grant relief; ultimately, finding no merit in the petition and holding that permitting the alleged road would be contrary to environmental protection, flood safety, and the Public Trust Doctrine, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, thereby allowing the State to proceed with flood protection and strengthening works on the banks of Zurreru Vagu.