The Chhattisgarh High Court’s suo motu intervention in this matter underscores a foundational principle of public governance: the right to unimpeded access to established public pathways is not a privilege but a legal entitlement protected by statute and constitutional order. The Court’s decisive action, triggered by media reports of blocked pagdandis, reveals systemic administrative failure and reaffirms the judiciary’s role in safeguarding civic rights when state machinery falters.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the unlawful obstruction of two long-standing public passages in Bilaspur district. The first involved a 40-year-old pagdandi beneath the Dayalband Bridge, used by approximately 15 families for daily access to homes, schools, and markets. Residents were forced to carry children across rivers on shoulders, and vehicles could not reach their dwellings. The second incident involved unauthorized girders blocking a road connecting Sharma Vihar and Chandra Geetanjali City, disrupting public mobility.
Procedural History
- 16 October 2025: Court took cognizance of a news report in Haribhoomi detailing the obstruction of the Dayalband Bridge pagdandi.
- 28 October 2025: Collector filed affidavit confirming the pagdandi was recorded in revenue records and obstructed by a wall erected by Shri Sanjay Chapariya.
- 18 November 2025: Collector submitted a fresh affidavit detailing invocation of Sections 131, 132, and 133 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.
- 15 December 2025: Court took note of a second obstruction at Sharma Vihar via a Dainik Bhaskar report.
- 17 December 2025: Municipal Commissioner filed affidavit confirming removal of unauthorized girders and commitment to ongoing monitoring.
- 30 January 2026: Final hearing held; no recurrence of obstruction reported.
Relief Sought
The Court sought not merely removal of physical obstructions but systemic reform to prevent future encroachments, including mandatory demarcation, regular monitoring, and proactive enforcement by revenue and municipal authorities.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether statutory easements recorded in Wazib-ul-Arz under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, create enforceable rights against private obstruction, and whether administrative inaction in the face of such encroachments constitutes a failure of public duty.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner (Suo Motu Petition)
Though no formal petitioner existed, the Court acted on the basis of public interest, relying on the principle that public easements are inviolable under Section 131 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, which mandates protection of established passages. The Court emphasized that failure to act preventively despite prior complaints violated the state’s duty under Article 21 to ensure safe access to essential services.
For the Respondents (State)
The State acknowledged the obstruction but argued that remedial action had been taken - walls dismantled, proceedings initiated, and monitoring systems introduced. It contended that the matter was now resolved and no further judicial intervention was warranted.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a rigorous examination of the statutory framework under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. It held that Wazib-ul-Arz, as the official record of land use and rights of way, is not a mere administrative document but a legally binding instrument that establishes prescriptive easements. Any obstruction of such passages is not a civil dispute but a statutory violation attracting penal consequences under Section 133.
"The right of residents to safe and unhindered access to their homes, workplaces, schools, and essential services is an integral facet of the rule of law and orderly governance."
The Court rejected the notion that remedial action after media exposure suffices. It distinguished between reactive enforcement and proactive governance, noting that delayed action undermines public trust and places undue burden on citizens to seek judicial redress. The Court affirmed that statutory duties are non-delegable and that Revenue Inspectors and Halka Patwaris bear direct responsibility for monitoring recorded passages.
It further held that the Municipal Corporation’s prompt response in the Sharma Vihar case demonstrated that effective enforcement is feasible and must become standard practice, not an exception.
The Verdict
The Court disposed of the suo motu PIL, finding the immediate grievances resolved. It held that obstruction of recorded public passages is a statutory violation and that administrative inaction constitutes a breach of public duty. The Court directed authorities to maintain vigilance and enforce provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code without waiting for public outcry or judicial prompting.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Easements Are Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must treat any obstruction of a passage recorded in Wazib-ul-Arz as a criminal encroachment, not a civil nuisance.
- Section 133 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code permits immediate removal and penal action - no prior civil suit is required.
- Revenue officers can be held accountable for negligence under Article 21 jurisprudence.
Preventive Monitoring Is Mandatory
- District administrations must conduct quarterly audits of all passages listed in Wazib-ul-Arz.
- Halka Patwaris must submit monthly reports on encroachments; failure to report constitutes dereliction of duty.
- Municipal corporations must integrate easement mapping into urban planning and infrastructure projects.
Judicial Patience Has Limits
- Courts will not tolerate repeated reliance on suo motu intervention for basic civic rights.
- Authorities must establish internal grievance redressal mechanisms for public passage complaints.
- Future inaction may invite contempt proceedings or mandatory compliance orders under Article 226.
