GORAKSHAN PRASAD SINGH @ GORAKSHAN PRASAD v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Cont.(Cvl)/79/2026 · 2026-06-19
Rajesh Shankar
Writ Petition (Civil)body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 17336 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 17336 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:JHHC:17903 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No.79 of 2026 -----
1. Gorakshan Prasad Singh @ Gorakshan Prasad, son of Late Shashi Shekhar Prasad Singh.
2. Dilip Kumar Singh, son of Late Gopeshwar Prasad Singh @ Girja Kumar Singh. Both resident of Ranka, Raj, P.O. & P.S. Ranka Raj, District Garhwa, Jharkhand.
.......... Petitioners. -Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sri Gauran Mahto, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, North Koel Pariyojna, Medininagar, Palamau at Daltonganj.
.......... Opp. Parties. -----
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vinit Prakash, AC to SC-IV -----
Order No.03
Date: 19.06.2026
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 9th April, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.5156 of 2023.
2. A show cause affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 on 15th June, 2026.
3. Mr. Vinit Prakash, learned AC to SC-IV, refers to the order as contained in Memo No.165 dated 22nd May, 2026 passed by the said opposite party and submits that the aforesaid order of this Court has now been complied.
4. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that perusal of the said order passed by the opposite party no.2 suggests that though the petitioners have been held entitled to receive compensation, however, the compensation amount has not been paid to them for want of fund.
2026:JHHC:17903 2
5. Be that as it may.
6. Since the opposite party no.2 has now passed the reasoned order in compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, 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 petitioners are, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law for redressal of his subsisting grievance.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) 19th June, 2026 Sanjay/ Uploaded on 22.06.2026