1 2025:CGHC:6028 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5473 of 2024 1 - Anil Kumar Satnami S/o Shri Budhu Satnami, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village-Amlibhauna, R.N.M. Chhatamura, Tahsil And District-Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Parmeshwar S/o Khuluram, Aged About 50 Years R/o House No. 304, Sonmuda, Amlibhauna, Tahsil And District-Raigarh (C.G.) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Anil Kumar Satnami S/o Shri Budhu Satnami, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village-Amlibhauna, R.N.M. Chhatamura, Tahsil And District-Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Luduram S/o Khuluram, Aged About 52 Years R/o House No. 216, Sonmuda, Amlibhauna, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Anil Kumar Satnami S/o Shri Budhu Satnami, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village-Amlibhauna, R.N.M. Chhatamura, Tahsil And District-Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Sudhuram S/o Khuluram, Aged About 60 Years R/o House No. 216k, Indira Awas Amlibhauna, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Anil Kumar Satnami S/o Shri Budhu Satnami, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village-Amlibhauna, R.N.M. Chhatamura, Tahsil And District-Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Jitendra S/o Ganesh, Aged About 28 Years R/o House No. 216, Sonmuda, Ward No. 42, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Anil Kumar Satnami S/o Shri Budhu Satnami, SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.02.05 15:49:52 +0530 2 Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village-Amlibhauna, R.N.M. Chhatamura, Tahsil And District-Raigarh (C.G.) 6 - Gulshan S/o Ganesh, Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 216c, Sonmuda, Ward No. 49, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Anil Kumar Satnami S/o Shri Budhu Satnami, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village-Amlibhauna, R.N.M. Chhatamura, Tahsil And District-Raigarh (C.G.) 7 - Chhote Bai Budhu Ram, Aged About 54 Years R/o House No. 216, Indira Awas, Amlibhauna, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Anil Kumar Satnami S/o Shri Budhu Satnami, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village-Amlibhauna, R.N.M. Chhatamura, Tahsil And District-Raigarh (C.G.) 8 - Sunil S/o Budhu Ram, Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 216, Indira Awas, Amlibhauna, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Anil Kumar Satnami S/o Shri Budhu Satnami, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village-Amlibhauna, R.N.M. Chhatamura, Tahsil And District-Raigarh (C.G.) 9 - Kapsa Bai @ Usha Baghel W/o Gorelal Baghel, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village-Gorra, Tahsil Pusaur, District-Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector, District-Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer 3 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 03.02.2025 1. By the present petition, the petitioners, who are the owner of the land bearing khasra no. 282/3 area 0.809 hectare situated in village Amlibhauna, P.H. No. 42 R.I. Circle Chhattamura Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.), challenge the order dated 04.02.2005 passed by the Collector Raigarh and imposed the restriction regarding sale, purchase and construction upon the land situated within 100 ft. from the centre of the National Highway (1) Raigarh to Regalpali (2) Raigarh to Kharsia (3) Raigarh to Sarangarh & (4) Raigarh to Dharamjaigarh. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land of the petitioner’s is coming within the area Raigarh to Kharsia and the petitioners are being deprived to sale the land owned by them. He would submit that the impugned order has been passed by the Collector in the year 2005 and the same is still continuing and the petitioners are being deprived of selling their land till date. According to him, the restrictions cannot be imposed forever without acquisition of land or without making payment of any compensation. Learned counsel would also submit that the Collector is not having any power or authority to pass such order restricting the sale and purchase of the land of a private person. 3. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the State was directed to seek instructions about existence of the order dated 04.02.2005. 4 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the respondent authorities are not in a position to provide any information about the order dated 04.02.2005. 5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents. 6. From the order dated 04.02.2005 passed by the Collector, it is manifest that the same is still in existence. The petitioner pleaded and submit that the sale and purchase of the land is still prohibited by the authorities and they are not able to sale their land because of impugned order. It further appears from the pleading of the petitioners that the land owned by the petitioners has not been acquired and no compensation has been paid to them and hence the impugned order by which the Collector has imposed the restriction for sale and purchase of the land for a unlimited period is absolutely illegal and arbitrary and as such the same cannot be continued forever. 7. In view of the aforesaid, facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 04.02.2005 (Annexure P/1), in respect of the petitioners, is hereby quashed. The petitioners are allowed to sale and purchase of their land, if they do so. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib