Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by ten residents of Banumukkala Village, Banaganepalle Mandal, Nandyal District, seeking a writ of mandamus. The petitioners alleged that a 30-foot road from Rajareddy Nagar to Papireddy Nagar had been used by villagers for the last seven decades and that on 08.09.2025 respondent authorities attempted to close it without notice. They contended that closure would block ingress and egress to residential colonies and violate natural justice, Article 21, and Article 300-A. An interim order passed on 23.09.2025 directed that if a road existed, respondents could not close it for three weeks, and noted that the burden to prove the road's existence lay on the petitioners. The third respondent filed a counter-affidavit denying existence of any road along Zurreru Vagu, stating that revenue records classified the land in Sy.Nos.67-1 and 68-1 as Vagu Poramboke reserved for natural water flow and flood protection. The Gram Panchayat records also certified that no road existed. Respondents claimed that the petitioners had a separate route to reach their houses and were attempting to stop ongoing flood protection works and encroach upon the Zurreru Vagu right bank. The counter-affidavit detailed that the Kurnool Urban Development Authority requested a survey, and the Tahsildar submitted a report on 20.11.2024; a joint survey on 23.09.2024 found encroachments, and a letter dated 10.07.2025 was addressed to the Tahsildar and other officials to evict encroachments. The Chief Engineer, Minor and Medium Irrigation, and the Superintending Engineer approved the design of the Zurreru Vagu flood protection works on 20.06.2025. The Panchayat Raj Department was constructing cement concrete drainage canals parallel to the vagu on both sides. Two function halls were constructed adjacent to the banks, and compound walls encroached into the vagu bank. Pending the writ petition, the Registrar (Judicial) conducted an inquiry because petitioners 3, 6, and 9 contended they did not sign the vakalat. The report confirmed that those petitioners denied signing; later, the 9th petitioner filed an affidavit confirming signature, but the 3rd and 6th petitioners did not. The court framed two points for consideration: whether the petitioners proved the existence of the road and whether they were entitled to the relief sought. It then discussed the scope of mandamus under Article 226, citing Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana, emphasizing that a mandamus requires a legal right, its infringement, and a corresponding legal duty. The court's analysis focused on the burden of proof and the necessity of establishing a legally enforceable right before a writ can issue. The extracted text does not contain the final operative order or final decision.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Scope and Preconditions - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The court examined the scope of a writ of mandamus, stating that it is a public law remedy, corrective and preventive in nature, and is issued only when a petitioner establishes a legal right, its infringement, a judicially enforceable right, and a corresponding legal duty on the part of the respondent that has not been performed - The court relied on Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana to reiterate that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right and that a person is aggrieved only when denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to act or abstain - Held that the existence of a legal right is a precondition for the issuance of a mandamus under Article 226 (Paras 11-12). B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Existence of Public Road - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioners claimed that a 30-foot road had been used by villagers for seven decades, while the respondent authorities denied its existence and asserted that the land in Sy.Nos.67-1 and 68-1 was Vagu Poramboke reserved for flood protection - The court framed the point whether the petitioners proved the existence of the road and noted that the interim order had required the petitioners to prove the existing road - Held that in a writ petition seeking mandamus, the burden lies on the petitioners to establish the factual and legal basis for the claimed right, and mere assertions of long use are insufficient without proof (Paras 2-5, 10). C) Property Law - Right of Access - Ingress and Egress - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21, Article 300-A - The petitioners alleged that closure of the road would violate their rights under Article 21 and Article 300-A and principles of natural justice, while respondents contended that the road did not exist, that petitioners had alternative routes, and that the works were flood protection measures on Vagu Poramboke - The court observed that claims of violation of fundamental rights depend on the establishment of an underlying legal right; without proof that a road existed, there is no infringement of life, liberty, or property - Held that the right to ingress and egress is not absolute and must be based on a legally recognized road or pathway; claims under Article 21 and Article 300-A cannot be sustained without proving the existence of the road (Paras 3, 6-7, 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners proved the existence of the road as alleged in the writ affidavit; Whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought in the writ petition; Scope of the writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Law Points
- Mandamus under Article 226 requires legal right and infringement
- Petitioner must establish judicially enforceable right and corresponding duty
- Writ of mandamus not issued for disputed facts
- Article 21 and 300-A not violated in absence of established right
- Burden of proof lies on petitioner to prove existence of road
- Public law remedy is corrective and preventive in nature
