Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:21896) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No.675 of 2025 ----- Bijay Saw, son of Naro Saw, resident of village Chhotki Barhi Rasolyadhamna, P.O. and P.S. Barhi, District Hazaribag. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Santosh Singh, District Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Competent Officer, NH-02 Hazaribag. 3. Dhiraj Kumar Bharti, Project Director, PIU, NHAI, Hazaribag. 4. Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, Project Director, PIU, NHAI, Hazaribag. .......... Opp. Parties. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhilash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Binit Chandra, A.C. to AAG-III For the O.P. Nos.2 to 4: Mr. Shubham Kataruka, Advocate ----- Order No.11 Date: 24.07.2026 1. The present contempt application has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding as against the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 alleging wilful violation of the order dated 22nd January, 2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.214 of 2025. 2. The present contempt case was earlier taken up on 18th July, 2026 and on the said date, the following order was passed: - “Mr. Binit Chandra, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-III, produces a copy of transaction detail issued by the IndusInd Bank, Hazaribagh Branch, Hazaribagh and submits that the compensation amount for acquisition of the land in question has duly been paid to the petitioner and a co-sharer Rubi Devi. 2. Mr. Sahil, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the amount in question has not yet been credited in the bank account of the petitioner. He, however, prays for a short adjournment to seek latest instruction in this regard from the petitioner. 3. Considering the said prayer, put up this case under the heading for “Orders” on 24.07.2026. 4. Let a copy of transaction detail be kept on record.” Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:21896) 3. Mr. Abhilash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though certain amount has been credited in the bank account of the petitioner in relation to acquisition of the land in question, however, the same is not sufficient as the petitioner deserves to be paid much more amount than what has been paid to him for acquisition of the said land. 4. Be that as it may. Since the authorities have already paid the admitted amount of compensation for acquisition of the land in question to the petitioner, there is no need to procced further in the present contempt matter. The contempt proceeding as against the O.P. Nos.2 to 4 is, hereby, dropped. 5. The contempt application is, accordingly, disposed of. 6. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law for redressal of his subsisting grievance. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 24th July, 2026 Rohit/ Uploaded on 24.07.2026