1 2025:CGHC:10268 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4010 of 2019 1 - Ramlal Baghel S/o Jailal Baghel Aged About 65 Years Ward No. 45, Vaishali Nagar, Kamla College Road, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R), Sub Division, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Registrar Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Shri Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03.03.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “I. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash/set aside the order dated 5/10/19 passed by respondent no. 2 so far as it relates to the petitioner land mention in Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- Khasra No. 68/5 at s. no. 120. II. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash/set aside the order dated 15/10/19 passed by respondent no. 4. III. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondents authority to permit the petitioner to sale his land as per his choice. IV. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of Survey No.68/5 admeasuring 0.21 acres, situated at Village Paneka, District Rajnandgaon. He would contend that the petitioner intended to alienate the part of the property but the Collector vide order dated 5.10.2019 restrained the petitioner and other villagers from alienating the property on the ground that the petitioner and other landowners were trying to develop a colony without securing a colonizer’s license. He would pray that the petitioner may be permitted to submit a detailed representation before respondent No.2 and in turn, the authority concerned may be directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner and other landowners were trying to alienate the property as developers without obtaining the required colonizer’s license, therefore, a common order was passed by the Collector, Rajnandgaon on 5.10.2019 whereby all the landowners involved in the development of colonies were restrained from alienating the 3 property. He would also submit that notices were issued thrice to the petitioner, but he failed to appear before the authority concerned and as a result, an order was ultimately passed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is the owner of 0.21 acres of land and according to him, notices were not served upon him, the instant petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No. 2 raising all his grievances. In turn, the authority concerned is directed to take an appropriate decision in an objective manner on such a representation keeping in mind that the petitioner is the owner of 0.21 acres of land only. An appropriate decision shall be taken by the authority concerned within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi