1 2025:CGHC:33304 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 852 of 2021 * - Thandaram S/o Late Sadhram Nayak Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Khamariya, Tahsil Tamnar, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Industries, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gharghoda, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Jindal Steel And Power Limited Patrapali Through Dinesh Bhargaw S/o P.N. Bhargaw Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village Patrapali, Tehsil And District, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Apurva Nigam, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. K.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4 For Respondent No. 5. : : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ambasta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities for providing the benefit of para 11.2.3 of Ideal Rehabilitation Policy 2007. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.21 17:06:25 +0530 2 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court kindly direct the respondents for returning the land of the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. 2. Ms. Apurva Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the land of the petitioner bearing Survey No. 138/3/2 admeasuring 0.199 hectare situated at Village Khamariya, Tehsil Tamnar, District Raigarh was purchased by respondent No. 5 to establish an Industry through registered sale deed dated 22.01.2009. She would submit that according to An Ideal Rehabilitation Policy 2007 (for short 'Policy of 2007'), the petitioner is entitled to claim employment in lieu of purchase of land. She would submit that the Clause 11.2.3 specifically deals with the issue involved in the present case. She would pray that a direction may be issued to respondent No. 5 to extend benefit of Clause 11.2.3 of Policy of 2007. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 would oppose. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava would submit that it was a private purchase contract between the petitioner and respondent No. 5. He would contend that in the registered sale deed, there is no condition with regard to application of Policy of 2007. He would further contend that the Policy of 2007 would attract when the lands have been acquired by the State only. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Topilal Bareth, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4 would support the contention made by learned Senior Counsel. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Perusal of the registered sale deed annexed as Annexure- P/1 by the petitioner would show that it was a simple land transaction between the parties and there is no whisper with regard to application of Policy of 2007. Further Clause 11.2.3 of Policy of 2007 clearly states that the benefit of this Policy would be extended, if the lands have been acquired by the State. 7. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to issue a direction to the respondent authorities. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti