COMMONWEALTH v. SGARLAT, 404 Pa. 225 (1961)

171 A.2d 775

Commonwealth v. Sgarlat, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.May 25, 1961.
June 26, 1961.

Equity — Practice — Interference with access to land — Fear of future interference — Absence of present harm.

Where it appeared that appellant owned certain land and the only means of access to it was a roadway running through land in which the Commonwealth owned a permanent easement to use and occupy in carrying out a flood control program, and there was no evidence that access to appellant’s land would be denied in the future, it was Held that the court below had properly denied appellant’s petition for an order that appellant has a right of access and for an award of damages for interference with it.

Page 226

Argued May 25, 1961. Before JONES, C. J., BELL, JONES, COHEN, BOK and EAGEN, JJ.

Appeal, No. 282, Jan. T., 1961, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, May T., 1958, No. 1, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Margretta Sgarlat et al. Order affirmed.

Proceedings on petition to modify decree and award damages for interference with a right of access to land.

Order entered denying petition, opinion by LEWIS, J. Petitioner appealed.

Neville B. Shea, for appellant.

Wanda P. Chocallo, Assistant Attorney General, with her Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for Commonwealth, appellee.

OPINION PER CURIAM, June 26, 1961:

The appellant, Margretta Sgarlat, is the owner of improved land situated to the rear of land in which the Commonwealth enjoys the perpetual easement to use and occupy in carrying out a flood control program. The only access to the land in the rear is over a roadway presently running through the land in which the Commonwealth owns the easement in perpetuity.

This present action is quite clearly for the purpose of securing, at this time, record assurance that this access will continue or, in lieu thereof, that the appellant will be paid damages for the “taking” of the land in the rear by the denial of access thereto. However, access still exists and there is now no indication that such will be denied in the future. When, and if, access is no longer available, any rights to damages for loss of property the appellant may have can be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.

Order affirmed.

Page 227