1 2026:CGHC:603 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 11 of 2026 1. Ravi Shankar Sharma S/o Late Vishnu Prasad Sharma Aged About 52 Years R/o Gitanjali Vihar, Nehru Nagar, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. 2. Sunder Kaushik S/o Ramlal Kaushik Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 01, Nagar Palika Bodri, Tehsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, C.G. 3. Ravi Shankar Sharma S/o Late Chhotelal Sharma Aged About 55 Years R/o Ganga Nagar, Sector-2, Mangla, Bilaspur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur 2. Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Rera), Nava Raipur Through Its Registrar, Office Address Near Clock Square, Near District Court, Tehsil And District Raipur, C.G. 3. Collector, Bilaspur Office Address Near Nehru Chowk, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. 4. Tehsildar Tehsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, C.G. 5. Gitanjali Era (Engineer Babu)/ Colonizer Through Authorized Representative, High Court Road, Bodri, Tehsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, C.G 6. S.R. Sahu S/o Late M.R. Sahu Aged About 62 Years Partner, Bilaspur Housing Pvt. Ltd., Nehru Nagar, Tehsil And District Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2026.01.06 18:03:43 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 06.01.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that the order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the Tehsildar Bodri, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) is being complied with the respondents No. 5 and 6 has and allowed them to use as their pathway. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioners have moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer Bilha alleging that the respondents No. 5 and 6 are illegally disallowing them to move their way as there is no way to visit their field causing difficulty in carried out their day to day activities. Thereafter, the Tehsildar Bilha vide order dated 11.06.2021 has also granted the stay against the respondents No. 5 and 6 still that order has not been complied with. Hence this writ petition. 3. Learned State counsel opposing the submission would submit that since there is pathway is adversely affecting by any action of the respondents No. 5 and 6, the petitioner has liberty to take recourse under the Indian Easements Act, 1882, as such, this writ petition is not maintainable and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 5. Considering the fact that there is disputed facts are involved and the Indian Easements Act, 1882 has been enacted by the 3 Parliament with aims and objects of law relating to easement and license. 6. Since specific remedial enactment are available, the writ petition at this juncture is not maintainable, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to take recourse available to them under the Indian Easements Act, 1882. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish