1 2026:CGHC:24144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1475 of 2021 1 - Mohd. Shabbir, S/o Mohd. Bashir, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Madpal, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Mohd. Kalim, S/o Mohd. Nashir Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Madpal, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Managing Director, Nmdc Nagarnar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate alongwith Shri G.P. Mathur, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Senior NIRMALA RAO 2 Advocate alongwith Shri T.L. Bareth, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 16.6.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to modify policy and include other dependents at the will of land oustee for employment in case he does not having children, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2) The facts, in brief, are that the land of petitioner No.1 situated at Village Madpal bearing Khasra No.446/1, admeasuring 0.17 hectares, was acquired in the year 2010 for the construction of a Steel Plant. According to Chhattisgarh State Ideal Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, petitioner No.1 approached respondents No.2 & 3 seeking employment for petitioner No.2 in lieu of the land acquisition but his claim has been rejected vide order dated 27.9.2019. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner No.1 is issueless and therefore, respondent No.2 should have considered the claim of petitioner No.2 for employment in lieu of land acquisition according to Chhattisgarh State Ideal 3 Rehabilitation Policy, 2007. He would contend that the representation of petitioner No.2 has been rejected by a cryptic order. He would pray to allow this petition. 4) On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate would submit that the nephew of a land oustee would not come within the ambit of an “affected family” as defined in the definition clause 2.1(c) of the Chhattisgarh State Ideal Rehabilitation Policy, 2007. She would submit that petitioner No.1 has already been paid compensation for the acquired land. Since petitioner No.2 is neither the biological son nor the adopted son of petitioner No.1, he cannot claim employment in lieu of land acquisition. She would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5) Learned counsel for the State would support the contention made by counsel for respondent No.3. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 7) Clause 2.1(c) of the Chhattisgarh State Ideal Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 defines an “affected family” and includes the wife/ husband, minor children, aged parents, widowed mother or sister and unmarried daughter. 8) Clause 2.1(e) of the Chhattisgarh State Ideal Rehabilitation Policy, 2007 defines a “displaced family” and likewise it does not include the nephew of a land oustee. Thus, from the definitions of “affected family” and “displaced family” it is quite vivid that a 4 nephew of a land oustee cannot maintain a claim for grant of employment in lieu of land acquisition. It is also not in dispute that petitioner No.1 has already been paid compensation for the acquired land. 9) The claim of petitioner No.2 has been rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 27.9.2019 on the ground that a nephew is not included within the definition of “affected family”. 10) As stated in the return filed by respondent No.3 on 8.9.2021, the order rejecting the representation i.e. Annexure-R/8, has not been challenged by the petitioners. 11) Having considered the facts discussed above and the definitions of “affected family” and “displaced family” under the policy of 2007, I do not find any good ground to interfere into the matter. 12) Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi