Pathway disputes require lawful demarcation under Section 129 after notice to adjoining landholders.

The petitioner sought removal of alleged encroachment from the cement-concrete road/pathway leading to his land bearing Khasra No. 787/15 at Mukt Nagar, Ward No. 43, Kasaridih, Durg.

He also sought directions for conclusion of proceedings initiated by the Building Construction Officer and for consideration of his representation dated 18 October 2025.

During hearing, the petitioner narrowed his prayer to a direction for lawful demarcation of the disputed pathway under Section 129 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the Rules framed thereunder, in the presence of the petitioner and adjoining landholders.

The Municipal Corporation raised no objection and stated that it had already taken steps concerning the alleged encroachment, while agreeing to conduct demarcation to resolve the dispute.

Whether the disputed pathway should be identified and demarcated in accordance with Section 129 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the Rules framed thereunder.

Whether the concerned authority should undertake consequential action after demarcation, while affording notice and a reasonable opportunity of participation to the petitioner and adjoining landholders.

Whether the demarcation order could be construed as conferring an exclusive right over the pathway upon the petitioner.

The Court applied Section 129 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the Rules framed thereunder, which govern lawful demarcation and identification of land boundaries and disputed pathways.

The Court further applied the principles of procedural fairness by requiring prior notice and a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner and all adjoining landholders to remain present during the demarcation proceedings.

It also recognised that the Court’s direction was limited to demarcation and did not determine the merits of the parties’ competing claims or create any exclusive proprietary or possessory right over a pathway intended for use by colony residents.

The Court found that the dispute essentially concerned the identification and demarcation of a pathway rather than an issue requiring adjudication of the parties’ substantive title or possessory rights.

Since the Municipal Corporation had no objection to conducting demarcation and had indicated that steps regarding the alleged encroachment had already been taken, the Court considered demarcation under Section 129 and the applicable Rules to be the appropriate course for resolving the factual boundary dispute.

To ensure fairness and avoid prejudice, the Court directed that all adjoining landholders and the petitioner be given notice and a reasonable opportunity to participate.

The Court expressly refrained from adjudicating the merits and clarified that the pathway’s use by colony residents could not be converted into an exclusive right in favour of the petitioner.

Following completion of demarcation, the authority was directed to take consequential steps strictly in accordance with law.

The order did not decide the merits of the parties’ claims and did not confer any exclusive right upon the petitioner over the pathway, which was stated to be intended for use by the residents of the colony.