[2026:JHHC:3029-DB] Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Cvl.) No. 1065 of 2024 --------- 1. Sona Ram Mahato, aged about 67 years, son of Late Puran Mahato. 2. Birendranath Mahato @ Biran Chandra Mahto, aged about 59 years, son of Late Puran Mahato. Both resident of Village-Kokebera, P.O. & P.S.-Chouka, District- Seraikella Kharsawan, Jharkhand. … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Sri Prashant Kumar, son of known to the petitioners, The Rehabilitation Officer (Plna Dam) cum Secretary, Water Resources Department Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, at P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ---------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Priyadarshi, Advocate Mr. Anup Kumar Yadav, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to SC-IV ----------- 06/Dated: 05th February, 2026 I.A. No. 1991 of 2026: 1. The present interlocutory application has been filed for substitution of petitioner no.1, namely, Sona Ram Mahato, to be substituted from his legal heir, i.e., the widow, namely, Sandhya Rani @ Chhaya Rani Mahto, as per the details furnished at paragraph-5. 2. There is no opposition by the learned counsel for the opposite parties. 3. The issue involved in this case is of supply of Vikas Pustika which is to be provided by the State to the displaced persons whose land have been acquired for public utility service. 4. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact as also taking into consideration the nature of dispute involved in this case, is of the view that the right to sue survives by the widow. [2026:JHHC:3029-DB] Page | 2 5. Accordingly, the present interlocutory application stands allowed, as such, disposed of. 6. Office is directed to make necessary deletion and addition in the arrays of the parties. Cont. Case (Cvl.) No. 1065 of 2024: 7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has sought for leave of this Court to file the show cause in the Court. 8. The same is taken on record. 9. Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, learned AC to SC-IV appearing for the concerned opposite party has submitted that fresh order has been passed in terms of the order dated 06.02.2024 passed in L.P.A. No. 682 of 2015, as such, submission has been made that the order has been complied with. 10. Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the aforesaid, has submitted that the contempt case may be disposed of with the liberty to challenge the order dated 30.01.2026 passed in compliance of the order dated 06.02.2024 passed in L.P.A. No. 682 of 2015. 11. Accordingly, the instant contempt case is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order before the appropriate forum. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 05th February, 2026 Saurabh/-