1 CGHC010292682026 2026:CGHC:32813 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3958 of 2026 1 - Vikash Agrawal S/o Gopal Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sadar Bazar Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Nitesh Agrawal S/o Gopal Agrawal Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sadar Bazar Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Deepika Agrawal D/o Gopal Agrawal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Sadar Bazar Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - Swati Agrawal D/o Gopal Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sadar Bazar Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Jitendra Kishore Mehta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Additional A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30.07.2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking for the following relief(s):- ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 “10.1. Set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 04.02.2005 of (Annexure P/1), passed by Collector Raigarh, in the in the interest of justice, and 10.2. Any other relief/reliefs, order/ orders which this Hon'ble Court as may deem fit and proper be awarded to the petitioners, as per facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, vide order dated 04.02.2005, the Collector, Raigarh imposed restrictions on the sale, purchase and construction over lands situated within a distance of 100 feet from the centre line of the National Highways, namely, (i) Raigarh–Regalpali, (ii) Raigarh–Kharsia, (iii) Raigarh– Sarangarh and (iv) Raigarh–Dharamjaigarh. He further submits that similarly situated landowners, aggrieved by the said order dated 04.02.2005, had preferred writ petitions before this Court, which were allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 03.02.2025, whereby the order dated 04.02.2005 was set aside qua the petitioners therein. It is, therefore, contended that the case of the present petitioners stands on the same footing and, accordingly, no different view deserves to be taken. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the judgment relied upon by the petitioners pertains to different persons and different parcels of land and, therefore, cannot be applied as a matter of course to the facts of the present case. He further submits that there is no material available on record to 3 demonstrate that the petitioners have ever approached the competent authority seeking the relief as claimed in the present writ petition. In the absence of any such representation or decision by the competent authority, the present petition is premature and liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. The restriction imposed by the Collector, Raigarh vide order dated 04.02.2005 has already been examined by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in respect of similarly situated landowners and the said order has been set aside qua the petitioners therein vide judgment dated 03.02.2025. The State has not pointed out any distinguishing feature in the present case so as to warrant a different view. 6. The operative part of the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPC No. 5473 of 2024 is contained in paragraph 6, which reads as under: “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 4 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 and in the interest of maintaining judicial consistency, this Court finds that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench dated 03.02.2025 passed in WPC No. 5473 of 2024. No distinguishing feature has been pointed out by the State warranting a different view. Consequently, the order dated 04.02.2005 passed by the Collector, Raigarh shall not be given effect to insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena