1 2025:CGHC:44902 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4692 of 2025 1 - Ramesh Agarwal S/o Late Shri Balkishan Agarwal Aged About 49 Years R/o Neelkamal Sadan Tilda-Kharora Main Road, Ward No. 18 Tilda District Raipur C.G. 2 - Mahesh Agrawal S/o Late Shri Brijmohan Agarwal Aged About 49 Years R/o Near H D F C Bank Tilda-Kharora Main Road, Ward No. 18 Tilda District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur C.G. 2 - The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - The Additional Collector, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 4 - The S D O (Revenue), Tilda- Newra, District Raipur C.G. 5 - The Tehsildar Tilda, Tehsil- Tilda- Newra, District Raipur C.G. 6 - District Registrar Raipur District Raipur C.G. 7 - Deputy Director Town And Country Planning Raipur Cum District Regularization Officer, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 03/09/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- 2 “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ and to direct the respondent No. 3 Additional Collector Raipur to remove the ban imposed in selling out the private property of the petitioenr. 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ and quash the impugned order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the Additional Collector Raipur (C.G.) 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in favour of the petitioner, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order/gyapan dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 3 Additional Collector Raipur restricting the petitioner to sell his property of a particular area as he wants to sell the property for a Emergency personal use but the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities without any authority passed an order. He submits that the petitioner is not making any illegal plotting on the land, however he wishes to sale the land owned by him within the permissible limit. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the submission made by the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the pleading and documents, it is evident that the order of restriction of sale has been imposed by the authorities only to prevent illegal plotting. Since the petitioner is stating that he 3 wishes to sell his total land owned by him within permissible limit of land transactions, there is nothing left to adjudicate, at this stage. Hence it is directed that the petitioner is permitted to sell his respective land within permissible limit of land transaction, only after getting permission from the Additional Collector Raipur and the Additional Collector concerned shall verify the fact that the petitioner sells his land within permissible limit. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti