2025:JHHC:17886 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 68 of 2025 1. Deepak Kumar Thakur, aged about 39 years, Son of late Kripal Thakur, resident of village Raham, P.O. Tandwa, P.S. Tandwa, District – Chatra 2. Dhupia Devi aged about 62 years, wife of late Kripal Thakur, resident of village Tandwa, P.O. and P.S. Tandwa, District Chatra 3. Baleshwar Kumar Thakur, aged about 42 years, son of late Kripal Thakur, resident of village Raham, P.O. Raham, P.S. Tandwa, District – Chatra 4. Dilip Kumar, aged about 45 years, son of late Kripal Thakur, resident of village Raham, P.O. Raham, P.S. Tandwa, District - Chatra … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sri Ramesh Golap, son of not known to the petitioner, Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, having its office at Chatra, P.O. Chatra, P.S. Chatra, District - Chatra … … Opp. Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Manish Mishra, GA V --- 10/04.07.2025 This petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of order dated 12.06.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2385 of 2022, W.P.(C) No.2366 of 2022, W.P.(C) No. 2371 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 2479 of 2022. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that pursuant to the order dated 12.06.2023 passed in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2385 of 2022 and analogous case, appropriate steps were taken and when a dispute was raised in connection with the entitlement/apportionment of the compensation amount under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the authority instead of referring the dispute under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act has asked the petitioners to get their dispute resolved through competent court of civil jurisdiction. The learned counsel submits that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra dated 13.06.2025 is not in accordance with the law, and therefore, the order passed by this Court has not been complied with in letter and spirit. 2025:JHHC:17886 2 3. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the order has been complied and if the petitioners have any grievance in connection with the order passed by the Deputy commissioner, they have remedy under the law. 4. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to proceed any further in this contempt proceeding. 5. However, it will be open to the petitioners to take steps in connection with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Misc. Case No.24 of 2023-2024 dated 13.06.2025, which has been annexed along with the show cause dated 19.06.2025. 6. This contempt proceeding is hereby dropped. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav