The Tahsildar is the authority in charge of resolving disputes over rights of way and other private easements. He also has the authority to take action under Section 132 of the Code of 1959 to penalize the individual who causes the hindrance, as well as to remove the obstacle under Section 133 of the Code of 1959 is upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through the learned bench led by Hon’ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy in the case of SHEIKH SIKANDAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (Writ Petition (C) No. 4993 of 2021)
Brief facts of the case are that The petitioner is the registered owner of 0.045 hectares of land bearing Kh. No.319/3 (Ga) in Village Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker. The petitioner was utilizing a path to approach her property, which was blocked by the respondents. The petitioner has filed an application with respondent, but no action has been taken on it. It is claimed that Section 131 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code (in short, ‘the Code, 1959’) states that such a dispute must be resolved by the Tahsildar, and that the Tahsildar also has authority to exercise powers granted to him under Sections 132 and 133 of the Code 1959, and that, as a result of the respondent inaction, this petition has been filed, praying for the issuance of appropriate direction. Learned State counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 rejects the submissions, but acknowledges the petition can be dismissed with direction.
Perused the materials filed with the petition and considered the submissions and held that The Tahsildar is an authority who, under Section 131 of the Code of 1959, is responsible for resolving disputes over rights of way and other private easements. He also has the authority to take action under Section 132 of the Code of 1959 to penalize the individual who causes the blockage, as well as to remove the obstacle under Section 133 of the Code of 1959. As a result, the petition is dismissed at the motion stage. The respondent is directed to take immediate action on the petitioner’s application/representation and make a decision as soon as possible, preferably within 60 days.
Judgement reviewed by – Pooja Lakshmi