Ideal Rehabilitation Policy 2007 benefits inapplicable to voluntary private sale transactions without compulsory acquisition.

The petitioner, Tejram, executed a sale deed on February 1, 2011, voluntarily selling land (Khasra Nos. 71/1 and 73/2 च, totaling 0.474 hectares) to Respondent No. 5, M/s Jaiswal Nico Industries Ltd., for a consideration of Rs. 9,49,000/-

The petitioner subsequently sought employment benefits under Para 11.2.3 of the State’s "Ideal Rehabilitation Policy 2007," claiming to be a "land oustee"

After a representation to the Chief Secretary went undecided, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction for eligibility under the Policy

1. Whether a person who transfers land through a voluntary private sale deed is entitled to the benefits of employment under the Ideal Rehabilitation Policy 2007?

2. Whether the term "land oustee" under the Policy includes individuals whose land was not compulsorily acquired by the State?

The court primarily applied the "Ideal Rehabilitation Policy 2007," which aims to benefit "land oustees" whose property is compulsorily acquired for industrial or developmental projects

the precedent established by the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Amar Kumar Agrawal v. State of CG and others (Writ Appeal No. 234/2016), which held that a case of compulsory acquisition is fundamentally different from a voluntary sale; the former involves land taken against the owner's will, whereas the latter is a private transaction to which rehabilitation policies designed for compulsory acquisition do not apply

The Court examined the nature of the transaction and found that the petitioner’s land was transferred via a voluntary sale deed (Annexure-P/1) rather than through a statutory compulsory acquisition process

The Court reasoned that the benefits of the Policy 2007 are specifically reserved for "land oustees"—those displaced by the State’s sovereign power of eminent domain

Applying the logic from Amar Kumar Agrawal, the court noted that since the petitioner was a willing seller who received a negotiated consideration, he failed to meet the necessary requirement of being an "oustee" under the law

The Court concluded that the Policy cannot be extended to cover private commercial agreements between individuals and industries

The writ petition was dismissed at the motion stage. No directions for employment or further consideration of the representation were granted.