RAMU YADAV @ RAJESH PRASAD v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Cont.(Cvl)/1564/2025 · 2026-05-15
Rajesh Shankar
Writ Petition (Civil)body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 12377 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 12377 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:15019 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No.1564 of 2025 ----- Ramu Yadav @ Rajesh Prasad, son of Late Bandhan Yadav, resident of village Konra Bye Pass Road, Barhi, P.O. & P.S. Barhi, District Hazaribag.
.......... Petitioner. -Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Mr. Nirbhay Kumar, District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribag.
.......... Opp. Parties. -----
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahadeo Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG-II -----
Order No.04
Date: 15.05.2026
1. The present contempt case has been filed for initiating contempt proceeding against the opposite party no.2 for his wilful and deliberate violation of the order dated 15th January, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.6311 of 2024.
2. A show cause affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2, annexing a copy of the reasoned order dated 6th May, 2026 passed by the said opposite party.
3. Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned AC to AAG-II appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submits that by the aforesaid reasoned order, the petitioner’s claim for compensation of the land in question has been rejected. It is, thus, submitted that the aforesaid order of this Court has now been complied by the said opposite party.
4. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no.2 has arbitrarily rejected the petitioner’s claim for compensation of the land in question.
2026:JHHC:15019 2
5. Be that as it may.
6. Since in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court, the opposite party no.2 has passed the reasoned order dated 6th May, 2026, there is no need to further proceed in the matter. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite party no.2 is hereby dropped.
7. The present contempt case stands disposed of.
8. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law against the aforesaid reasoned order dated 6th May, 2026 passed by the opposite party no.2.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) 15th May, 2026 Sanjay/ Uploaded on 15.05.2026