Blocking of public pathway used by residents for decades, is a serious issue warranting intervention.
Chhattisgarh High Court Intervenes in Public Pathway Blockage Case Suo Moto PIL Initiated to Address Long-standing Harassment of Dayalband Bridge Residents
In a significant move, the Chhattisgarh High Court has taken suo moto cognizance of a public interest issue involving the blockage of a public pathway, a lifeline for several families residing under the Dayalband Bridge for over 40 years. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, initiated proceedings following a news report highlighting the ordeal faced by the residents.
The court's intervention came after a report in the Hindi daily "Haribhoomi" revealed the challenges faced by nearly 15 families due to the obstruction of their traditional path. This path has been pivotal for their daily commutes, including school runs and emergency situations. The blockage, allegedly orchestrated by individuals attempting to coerce the residents into selling their land, has left the community in distress, forcing them to navigate treacherous routes, including a river, to reach essential services.
Upon receiving complaints, the Revenue Department inspected the site and confirmed the existence of the footpath in official records. Despite this, an iron gate and a boundary wall were erected, accompanied by a threatening message, effectively challenging state authority and causing further harassment to the residents.
The High Court has expressed grave concerns over the matter, directing the District Magistrate of Bilaspur to submit a personal affidavit detailing the actions taken by the administration to resolve the issue. The court emphasized that the message on the wall is a direct affront to state authority, underscoring the seriousness of the situation.
The court has scheduled the next hearing for October 28, 2025, and has instructed the Registrar (Judicial) and the State counsel to ensure that the District Magistrate is informed and complies with the court's directives promptly.
Bottom Line:
Blocking of public pathway used by residents for decades, causing harassment and challenges to State authority, is a serious issue warranting intervention.
Statutory provision(s): None explicitly mentioned in the judgment.
