2026:JHHC:11223 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No.1338 of 2025 ----- 1. Ashok Kumar Shaw, son of Late Vishunpada Shaw, resident of Bhagabandi, P.O. Bhagabandi, P.S. Dumaria, District-East Singhbhum. 2. Dewesh Kumar Shaw, son of Late Gauranga Shaw, resident of Bhagabandi, P.O. Bhagabandi, P.S. Dumaria, District-East Singhbhum. 3. Narendar Mahato @ Naran Mahato, son of Late Netra Mohan Mahto, resident of village-Pathrasai, P.O. Pathrasai, P.S. Dumaria, District-East Singhbhum. 4. Smt. Chumki Rani Mahato @ Chumki Mahato, wife of Narendra Mahto, resident of village-Pathrasai, P.O. Pathrasai, P.S. Dumaria, District-East Singhbhum .......... Petitioners. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Smt. Gunjan Kumari Sinha, the District Land Acquisition Officer, East Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S. Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum. .......... Opp. Parties. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Amitesh Kr. Geasan, AC to AAG-IA ----- Order No.06 Date: 18.04.2026 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 15th January, 2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6492 of 2024. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the compensation amount earlier assessed on 22nd April, 2025, with respect to acquisition of the structures existing over the land in question, has been reduced by the Opposite Party No.2. The said fact would be evident from the order dated 6th December, 2025 (part of 2026:JHHC:11223 2 Annexure-A to the show-cause affidavit dated 16th January, 2026). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said reduction in the compensation amount is highly arbitrary. It is further submitted that if the authorities have assessed compensation for the structures at the rate prevailing at the time of acquisition, they should have also paid interest over the same, as per land acquisition law. Moreover, before reducing the amount of compensation, the petitioners should have been given an opportunity of hearing. 4. Be that as it may. 5. Since pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, the Opposite Party No.2 has made assessment of compensation with respect to the structures existing over the land in question, this Court does not intend 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 petitioners are, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse in this regard, as available under law. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 18th April, 2026 Rohit/ Uploaded on 20.04.2026