1 CGHC010188682026 2026:CGHC:33339 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2476 of 2026 1 - Smt. Shashi Daga W/o Late Sunil Kumar Daga Aged About 57 Years R/o Sadar Bazar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Riya Daga D/o Late Sunil Kumar Daga Aged About 34 Years R/o Sadar Bazar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Rishabh Daga S/o Late Sunil Kumar Daga Aged About 31 Years R/o Sadar Bazar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Collector District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Aarang, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar Mandirhasaud Tehsil Mandirhasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran (Nranvp) Earlier Known As Naya Raipur Development Authority (Nrda), Through The Chief Executive Officer, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Paryawas Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mohd. Naqeeb, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 31.07.2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record of the case pertaining to the issuance of the impugned memo. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), quashing the impugned memo/letter dated 12.01.2026 (ANNEXURE P-1) and 15.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-2) declaring the same to be illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), to respondent no.5 to provide no-objection certificate to the petitioner and grant any other 'relief, including the cost of this petition, as it appears to be fit and appropriate to this Hon'ble Court.” 3 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition stands squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in WPC No. 2374 of 2026 (Sushil Daga vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 27.07.2026. It is jointly prayed that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the observations and findings recorded therein. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:– “6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh application before respondent No.5,supported by an affidavit, clearly indicating the extent of land proposed to be sold, the particulars of the proposed purchaser and stating that the proposed sale is necessitated solely on account of his financial exigency and that he intends to sell only the specified portion of the land. On such application being filed, respondent No.5 shall consider and decide the same, after due verification, strictly in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible. 7. It is made clear that the present order has been passed in the peculiar facts of the case, considering the petitioner's 4 assertion on affidavit regarding his urgent financial requirement. This order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 3. Since the grievance of the petitioner is identical to the one considered in WPC No. 2374 of 2026 (Sushil Daga vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 27.07.2026, and the petitioner in the present case is also seeking the same relief, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of and in line with the aforesaid judgment. 4. No order as to cost(s). sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha