2026:JHHC:24702 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 4474 of 2012 ------ 1. Naresh Thakur, son of Late Bijeshwar Thakur 2. Akhileshwar Mahto, son of Rajnath Mahto 3. Ajay Kumar, son of Shyam Narayan Sinha 4. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, son of Lakshman Prasad Gupta 5. Akhtar Hussain, son of Late Md. Latif 6. Sanjay Singh, son of Late Thakur Singh 7. Jay Prakash Mahto, son of Late Jagdish Mahto Sl. Nos. 1 to 7, all residents of Village Chutupalu, P.O. Chutupalu, P.S. Ormanjhi, District Ranchi 8. Purnima Sahu, wife of Dhaneswar Sahu, resident of Village Chutupalu, P.O. Chutupalu, P.S. Ormanjhi, District Ranchi 9. Zubaida Khatun, wife of Late Nizamuddin 10. Surendra Singh, son of Kartar Singh 11. Md. Sagir, son of Md. Hamid 12. Anuj Kumar, son of Firangi Sharma 13. Ashok Kumar, son of Late Kesho Prasad Agrawal 14. Shatrughan Prasad Raj, son of Late Vishwanath Prasad 15. Om Pramash Agrawal, son of Late Vishwanath Prasad 16. Gulshan Bedya, son of Late Lakhan Bedya 17. Tulsi Sahu, son of Late Chhatru Sahu 18. Dhanpat Bedia, son of Late Bhola Bedia 19. Suresh Thakur, son of Late Digu Thakur Sl. Nos. 9 to 19, all residents of Village Chutupalu, P.O. Chutupalu, P.S. Ormanjhi, District Ranchi .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 3. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-competent officer under N.H. Act, Ranchi .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Mr. Nitish Krishna, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Prakash, A.C. to S.C. IV ------ 21/17.08.2026 This matter is of the year 2012 and it relates to acquisition of land for construction of NH 33. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already taken the file from him three years back and in view of that he is not in a position to argue this case. 3. If the petitioners have taken the file three years back, it was 2026:JHHC:24702 incumbent upon them to make alternative arrangement to represent them by appointing another Advocate or to appear in person. However, they have chosen not to do so which clearly suggests that the petitioners have lost their interest in the matter. 4. Learned counsel for the State is present. 5. In that view of the matter, this writ petition, is hereby, dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 17.08.2026 Anit Uploaded 19.08.2026