GA Code § 32-7-1 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 32 - Highways, Bridges, and Ferries|Chapter 7 - Abandonment, Disposal, or Leasing of Property Not Needed for Public Road Purposes|§ 32-7-1. Authority of Department, Counties, and Municipalities to Substitute For, Relocate, or Abandon Public Roads

 Whenever deemed in the public interest, the department or a county or a municipality may substitute for, relocate, or abandon any public road that is under its respective jurisdiction, provided that a county or municipality shall first obtain the approval of the department if any expenditure of federal or state funds is required.   (Code 1933, § 95A-618, enacted by Ga. L. 1973, p. 947, § 1.)   Law reviews.   - For annual survey on local government law, see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 135 (2014).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Editor's notes.   - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, Ch. 95-17, which was subsequently repealed but was succeeded by provisions in this Code section, are included in the annotations for this Code section.   Authority of department and political subdivisions to vacate roads.    - General Assembly has delegated to the Department of Transportation, and to counties and municipalities throughout the state, authority to relocate or abandon public roads within their respective jurisdictions. McIntosh County v. Fisher, 242 Ga. 66, 247 S.E.2d 863 (1978).   Vacating of street must benefit public in general.    - Neither General Assembly nor subordinate public corporation acting under its authority can lawfully vacate a public street or highway for benefit of a private individual. The street or highway cannot be vacated unless it is for the benefit of the public that such action should be taken. McIntosh County v. Fisher, 242 Ga. 66, 247 S.E.2d 863 (1978).   Public benefits justifying vacating of public street or highway.    - General Assembly or a subordinate public corporation acting under its authority may lawfully vacate a public street or highway in order to relieve the public from the charge of maintaining a street or highway that is no longer useful or convenient to the public, or to lay out a new street or road in its place which will be more useful and convenient to the public in general. McIntosh County v. Fisher, 242 Ga. 66, 247 S.E.2d 863 (1978).   Abandonment only to benefit private individual constitutes abuse of power.    - If public interest is not the motive which prompts vacating of a street, whether partial or entire, the act of vacating is an abuse of power, and a gross abuse of power if it is authorized without reference to the rights of the public and merely for the convenience of a private individual. McIntosh County v. Fisher, 242 Ga. 66, 247 S.E.2d 863 (1978).   Public nonuse of road's full width is not abandonment.    - If highway is legally laid out and established, the mere fact that the public does not use the highway to the highway's entire width will not of itself constitute an abandonment of any portion thereof. State Hwy. Dep't v. Strickland, 214 Ga. 467, 105 S.E.2d 299 (1958) (decided under former Code 1933, Ch. 95-17).    Encroachments on highway continually used cannot be legalized by mere lapse of time. State Hwy. Dep't v. Strickland, 214 Ga. 467, 105 S.E.2d 299 (1958) (decided under former Code 1933, Ch. 95-17).   Counties and citizens may establish easements over abandoned roads.    - Power and authority conferred upon State Highway Board (now State Transportation Board) to change or relocate state-aid roads, and thus to abandon portions of those roads, does not specifically or by necessary implication include power to foreclose rights of counties or general public to establish easements over abandoned portions of such roads. Southern Ry. v. Wages, 203 Ga. 502, 47 S.E.2d 501 (1948) (decided under former Code 1933, Ch. 95-17).   Questions of fact remained as to abandonment.    - In a dispute over access to a roadway, the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff summary judgment enjoining the defendant from obstructing the road because questions of fact remained as to abandonment of the roadway leading to the plaintiff's property, which were not properly resolved by the trial court. Pass v. Forestar GA Real Estate Group, Inc., 337 Ga. App. 244, 787 S.E.2d 250 (2016), cert. denied, No. S16C1689, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 830 (Ga. 2016).   Judicial review of abandonment decision.    - In a mandamus action, a trial court erred by reversing a decision of a county board of commissioners to abandon a road as the trial court failed to give proper deference to the board's decision to abandon the road and substituted the court's own judgment for that of the board. Scarborough v. Hunter, 293 Ga. 431, 746 S.E.2d 119 (2013).    Cited in Stein v. Maddox, 234 Ga. 164, 215 S.E.2d 231 (1975); Hall County Historical Soc'y, Inc. v. Georgia DOT, 447 F. Supp. 741 (N.D. Ga. 1978).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   ALR.    - Reversion of title upon abandonment or vacation of public street or highway, 70 A.L.R. 564.    Right of private citizen to complain of rerouting of highway or removal or change of route or directional signs, 97 A.L.R. 192.    Necessity for adhering to statutory procedure prescribed for vacation, discontinuance, or change of route of street or highway, 175 A.L.R. 760.