Patna High Court
Rakesh RanjanversusThe State of Bihar, through its Chief Secretary, Shri Prataya Amrit
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that there was no violation of the earlier order and therefore dismissed the petition for contempt.
Summary
Petitioner Rakesh Ranjan filed a writ petition seeking contempt proceedings against the Circle Officer and other officials for allegedly violating a court order dated 23‑04‑2024 in CWJC No.639 of 2019. The respondents submitted a show‑cause memorandum stating that only limited earthwork was carried out, that the land in question lies beyond the sanctioned project limit of 7.32 km chainage (the land is at 7.57 km), and that no construction activity is ongoing. They argued that the land therefore cannot be subject to acquisition under the approved scheme. The court examined the measurement report, the fresh verification report, and the project agreement, and found the respondents' explanations satisfactory. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to agitate the matter if desired, but not ordering contempt proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the Circle Officer violated the order dated 23‑04‑2024 in CWJC No.639 of 2019 by proceeding with work on the petitioner's land.
- Whether contempt proceedings can be initiated against the respondents for alleged non‑compliance with the earlier court order.
Subjects
- contempt
- land acquisition
- irrigation project
- court order compliance
- show cause memorandum
- jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.128 of 2026
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.639 of 2019
======================================================
Rakesh Ranjan Son of Late Ramshidh Sharma @ Ramsidh Sharma, Resident
of Village Hardashpur, P.O.- Saho Bigha, P.S.- Ghosi, District- Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through its Chief Secretary, Shri Prataya Amrit
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Shri Santosh Kumar Mall, The Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Shri C.K. Anil, The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. Shri Allangkita Pandey, District Magistrate, Jehanabad.
5. Shri Arun Kumar Paswan, The Executive Officer, Irrigation Department,
Jehanabad.
6. Shri Sudhir Tiwary, The Circle Officer, Ghosi, District- Jehanabad.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Government Advocate 2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 01-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) "for initiation of contempt proceeding
against the opposite parties specially the
Circle Officer, Ghosi, Jehanabad for the
violation of the order dated 23.04.2024
passed by the Hon'ble Court in CWJC No.
639 of 2019."
Patna High Court MJC No.128 of 2026(4) dt.01-05-2026
2/4
3. A show cause has come on behalf of the opposite
party nos. 04 and 06 and the learned State counsel has taken this
Court to paragraph nos. 07 to 12 which read as under:
7. That from the measurement report
annexed by the petitioner himself as
Annexure-P/4, it is evident that only
limited earthwork was found on certain
portions of the land, which was carried
out by the Irrigation Department.
8. That without prejudice to the above,
and taking serious note of the
petitioner's claim, fresh verification was
directed by the Circle Officer, Chosi
vide Letter No. 504 dated 10.04.2026.
9. That pursuant thereto, the Anchal
Amin submitted report dated
11.04.2026, which clearly establishes
that no further work has been carried
out and the earlier position remains
unchanged.
10. That it is further submitted that as
per official records, the work under
Patna High Court MJC No.128 of 2026(4) dt.01-05-2026
3/4
Agreement No. 02/SBD/2018-19 dated
19.04.2018 was sanctioned only up to
7.32 KM chainage, whereas the land
claimed by the petitioner situated at
7.57 KM chainage, i.e.. beyond the
sanctioned project limit.
11. That the report clearly demonstrates
that any earthwork found on the
petitioner's land is beyond the approved
project alignment and therefore cannot
be treated as part of any sanctioned
governmental activity. Consequently,
such land is not liable to acquisition
under the approved scheme.
12. That it in further submitted that the
land in question is presently lying
unused and there is no ongoing
construction activity over the same.
4. Learned State counsel with the help of paragraph-
12 submits that the land in question is lying unused and there is
no construction activity over it.
5. This Court is satisfied with the show cause filed by
Patna High Court MJC No.128 of 2026(4) dt.01-05-2026
4/4
the opposite parties, the MJC No. 128 of 2026 is disposed of
with liberty to the petitioner to agitate the matter, if he so wants.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…