2026:JHHC:7888 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1116 of 2025 ----- Ravi Kachhap, S/o Late Baya Kachhap, R/o Village-Murung Toli, P.O.-Tupudana, P.S.-Namkum, District-Ranchi .......... Petitioner -Versus- 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Sri Krishna Kanhaiya Rajhans, District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi .......... Opp. Parties ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-V ----- Order No.06 Date: 20.03.2026 1. The opposite party No. 2 is physically present before this Court. 2. The present contempt case has been filed for initiating contempt proceeding against the opposite party No. 2 for his wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 15.01.2025 passed in W.P. (C) No. 6301 of 2024. 3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned A.C. to G.A.-V, refers to paragraph Nos. 11 & 12 of the show cause affidavit dated 18.03.2026 filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 2, which read as under: “11. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Ranchi as contained in letter no. 547 dated 11.03.2026 categorically stated that land of the petitioner has not been acquired nor utilized for construction of road from Dungri Milan Chowk to Ram Krishna T.B. Sanitarium Hospital. The above noted road became decrepit as such upon old alignment the road was constructed. The Executive Engineer also categorically stated that no land acquisition proceeding had been initiated for construction of road from Dungri Milan Chowk to Ram Krishna T.B. Sanitarium Hospital. 12. That it is humbly stated and submitted that in the light of the specific reply given by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road 2026:JHHC:7888 2 Division, Ranchi as contained in letter no. 547 dated 11.03.2026, and vide notice to petitioner dated 19.01.2026 the petitioner was also given opportunity to the petitioner to place his grievance before the answering opposite parties. The answering opposite party after considering the entire materials available on record passed a detailed reasoned order on 11.03.2026 by which the said proceeding was disposed and claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 11.03.2026.” 4. It is thus submitted that the aforesaid order of this Court has been complied. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party No. 2 has not provided due opportunity to the petitioner to place the fact that the land in question over which the road was constructed belonged to the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may. 7. Since in pursuance of the order dated 15.01.2025 passed in W.P. (C) No. 6301 of 2024, the opposite party No. 2 has already passed a reasoned order, there is no need to further proceed in the matter. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite party No. 2 is hereby dropped. 8. The present contempt case stands disposed of. 9. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law for redressal of his subsisting grievance. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 20.03.2026 Vikas/ Uploaded on 20.03.2026