1 2025:CGHC:611 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 663 of 2012 1 - Ramesh Kumar Gupta S/o Lt. Shri Govind Prasad Gupta, aged about 54 years, resident of behind Ramlila Maidan, Raigarh, Tehsil & District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Ministry of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2 – Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 – Collector, District Raigarh. 4 – Additional Collector, Raigarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate. For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “α. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records from the courts below concerned for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. b. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 24.2.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.2 and order dated 20.5.2011 (Annexure P-2). c. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to allot 0.343 hectare of land from the government land bearing Khasra No.195/1, क, situated at Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- P.H.No.14, Village Jagatpur, District Raigarh on payment of amount of difference by the petitioner. d. Cost of the proceedings. e. Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application of the petitioner for exchange of land has been rejected on the ground that the proposal was not sent by the concerned Tehsildar to the higher authorities in accordance with the rehabilitation policy and instead it was forwarded according to the provisions of the revenue book circular. He would further contend that the respondent authorities may be directed to refer the matter to the higher authorities to consider the application of the petitioner for exchange of land according to rehabilitation policy and the decision taken by the Commissioner/ respondent No.2 dated 24.2.2012 (Annexure-P/1) and the Additional Collector/ respondent No.4, Raigarh dated 20.5.2011 (Annexure-P/2) may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that as there is no provision in the revenue book circular with regard to exchange of land, therefore, application of the petitioner for exchange of land has rightly been rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to forward the application, moved by the petitioner to the higher authorities to decide it according to the 3 clause 4.1 of the rehabilitation policy afresh and the order passed by the Commissioner/ respondent No.2 dated 24.2.2012 (Annexure-P/1) and the Additional Collector/ respondent No.4, Raigarh (Annexure-P/2) dated 20.5.2011 are hereby quashed. 6. It is expected that the respondent authorities shall decide the matter preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi