2026:JHHC:10963 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No.1106 of 2025 ----- Ashok Yadav, son of Late Yamuna Prasad Yadav, resident of Samdanala, P.O.-Sahibganj, P.S. Sahibganj Muffasil, District- Sahibganj. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Shri Krishna Kumar Kisku, District Land Acquisition Officer, Sahibganj, P.O. Sahibganj, P.S.-Sahibganj (Town), District- Sahibganj. .......... Opp. Parties. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II ----- Order No.18 Date: 17.04.2026 1. The present contempt application has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding as against the Opposite Party No.2 alleging wilful violation of the order dated 23rd February, 2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2078 of 2021. 2. Reference may be made to the order dated 20th March, 2026, which reads as under: “Pursuant to order dated 30.01.2026, Mr. Chhuteshwar Kumar Das, District Land Acquisition Officer, Sahebganj (the opposite party no. 2), is physically present before this Court. 2. Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-II, refers to supplementary show cause affidavit dated 11.02.2026 filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2, particularly the order dated 15.09.2025 (Annexure-B to the said show cause affidavit) passed by the said opposite party subsequent to the order dated 18.10.2024 passed in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 81 of 2024. He submits that the order dated 15.09.2025 clearly suggests that there was no award with respect to acquisition of 14 mango trees in connection with Land Acquisition Case Nos. 02 of 2015-16 and 34 of 2017-18. 2026:JHHC:10963 2 3. It is further submitted that so far as Land Acquisition Case No. 02 of 2015-16 is concerned, 36 mango trees were the subject matter for which compensation has already been paid to the petitioner in the year 2019. As regards Land Acquisition Case No. 34 of 2017-18, the petitioner has been paid compensation for acquisition of 13 mango trees and one timber. The petitioner is however claiming compensation for 14 more mango trees which, as per record, is not the subject matter of the aforesaid two acquisition proceedings. It is thus submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has not committed any contempt of court, rather he has fairly revisited the mistake earlier committed by the then District Land Acquisition Officer, Sahebganj. 4. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, is not in a position to controvert the said factual stand taken by the opposite party no. 2 in the supplementary show cause affidavit dated 11.02.2026. He, however, prays for an adjournment to address this Court on the said aspect. 5. Considering the said prayer, put up this case under the heading “For Admission” on 17.04.2026. 6. The physical appearance of the opposite party no. 2 is dispensed with till further order.” 3. It thus appears from the aforesaid order that on 20th March, 2026, Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, was not in a position to controvert the said factual stand taken by the Opposite Party No.2 in the supplementary show-cause affidavit dated 11th February, 2026. Under the said circumstance, the case was adjourned at his request to address this Court on the said aspect. 4. Though Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has tried to impress upon the Court that the petitioner is yet to be paid compensation for 14 more mango trees, however, on perusal of the record, this Court is 2026:JHHC:10963 3 of the view that the petitioner has not been able to sufficiently put forth his claim for grant of compensation for the said 14 mango trees. 5. Under the said circumstance, this Court does not wish to proceed further in the present contempt matter. The contempt proceeding as against the Opposite Party No.2 is, hereby, dropped. 6. The contempt application is, accordingly, disposed of. 7. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law for redressal of his subsisting grievance. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 17th April, 2026 Rohit/ Uploaded on 17.04.2026