1 2026:CGHC:19122 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 850 of 2021 Tejram S/o Late Sadhram Nayak Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Karwahi Tahsil Tamnar District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner. Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar Raipur , Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Industries, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Raigarh District Raigarh Cahhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Land Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - M/s Jaiswal Nico Industries Ltd. Earlier Known As Jaiswal Nico Ltd., F-8 MIDC IMDL, Area Hingna Road Nagpur- 440016 Maharashtra (India) ... Respondents. (cause title as per CIS Periphery & Writ Petition) For Petitioner : Ms. Chanchal Vastrakar, Advocate. For Res No.1 to 4/ State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. AG. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 24/04/2026 1. The necessary facts of the case are that the petitioner executed a sale deed (Annexure-P/1) dated 01.02.2011 in favour of respondent No.5 (M/s Jaiswal Nico Industries Ltd.), through which he sold land bearing Khasra No. 71/1, area 0.150 hectares, and Khasra No. 73/2 च, area 0.324 hectares, for a sum of Rs.9,49,000/-. The State of Chhattisgarh issued the Ideal Rehabilitation Policy 2007 (henceforth the "Policy 2007"), which provides various benefits to land oustees whose land has been acquired for industrial purposes or projects. However, despite being eligible for benefits under the said Policy, the petitioner has not been provided employment as per Para 11.2.3 of the Policy 2007. Hence, this petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the land was sold through a private transaction to respondent No. 5, but the petitioner is still entitled to the benefits of Policy 2007. She further submits that the petitioner has also submitted a representation (Annexure-P/3) dated 18.11.2019 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, but it has not been decided yet. Therefore, the case may be admitted and an appropriate order may be passed in favour of the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that since the sale transaction was executed between the petitioner and respondent No.5 as a private transaction, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefits of Policy 2007. He further submits that Policy 2007 is only applicable when land is compulsorily acquired for industrial purposes or a project, whereas this case involves a clear private transaction. In support of his contention, he 3 relies on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Amar Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of CG and others, Writ Appeal No. 234/2016 and other connected matter, delivered on 22.11.2016. In view of such submission, he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the documents, particularly the sale deed (Annexure-P/1) dated 01.02.2011, it appears that the petitioner sold his land to respondent No.5 (M/s Jaiswal Industries Ltd.) for a consideration of Rs.9,49,000/- for which he is seeking benefit under the Policy 2007. However, the Ideal Rehabilitation Policy 2007 is intended to benefit only those 'land oustees' whose property has been compulsorily acquired by the State for industrial or developmental projects. Since the petitioner's land was not acquired under compulsory acquisition law, but rather through a voluntary sale, therefore, he cannot take benefit for sale of subject land under the provisions of the Policy 2007 . 6. Furthermore, in the case of Amar Kumar Agrawal (Supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench observed that a case of compulsory acquisition is totally different from a voluntary sale, and made the following observation at Para 8, which is reproduced hereunder: "8. We find no merit in the contention raised by Shri Sharma. The notification which we have quoted hereinabove clearly shows that it is applicable only when the land is acquired and there is a compulsory acquisition of the land. A case of compulsory acquisition is totally different from a voluntary sale. Compulsory acquisition is 4 resorted to when the land owner is not willing to sell his land. In such a case, the land may have to be purchased / acquired at a price more than the prevailing market rate because the owner has to be compensated for the compulsory nature of the acquisition. The notification in question clearly lays down that it has been issued in terms of the Ideal Rehabilitation Policy framed with the purpose of helping those citizens whose lands are compulsorily acquired. We are clearly of the view that this notification is not applicable in the case of voluntary transfers." 7. In light of the observation made in the aforesaid judgment and the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, this Court finds that the petitioner sold the subject land through a voluntary private transaction as apparent by the sale deed (Annexure-P/1). The petitioner has failed to establish that the land was acquired by the State or respondent No. 5 by compulsory acquisition, which is necessary requirement to get the benefit under the Ideal Rehabilitation Policy 2007. Since the benefits of the Policy 2007 are mainly applicable to the land oustees whose land/property is taken as compulsory acquisition for government, industrial or developmental projects etc., and not to those who enter into private sale agreements voluntarily, therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed. 8. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed at motion stage itself. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay