Disposed¶31

Ganesh Rabidas v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Jan 2025Cont.(Cvl)/295/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC (Ranchi), Cont. Case (Civil) 295/2024, decided 03.01.2025, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.: contempt for alleged non-compliance of order dated 02.02.2023 in W.P.(C) 1991/2012 concerning SC/ST/BC land settlement (Mahagama, Godda); stay order in encroachers' W.P.(C) 6417/2023 cited as blocking allotment; held no willful or deliberate violation; contempt proceedings dropped.

What did the court decide?

None; the contempt proceedings were dropped and no further action was directed against the opposite parties. ¶31

Ganesh Rabidas Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 295 of 2024

¶3

Ganesh Rabidas, aged about 64 years son of Doman Rabidas, resident of village and P.O. Mahagama, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda

¶4

Shambhu Pandit, aged about 65 years son of late Sukhari Pandit, resident of village and P.O. Mahagama, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda

¶5

Baishakhi Devi aged about 71 years w/o Late Ram Bilash Rabindas son of late Karo Rabidas, resident of village and P.O. Mahagama, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda

¶6

Sukari Devi aged about 68 years w/o Late Ramdeo Rabidas son of late Gopi Rabidas, resident of village and P.O. Mahagama, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda

¶7

Naresh Rabidas aged about 57 years son of late Makhan Rabidas, resident of village and P.O. Mahagama, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda

¶8

Pradip Ravidas aged about 45 years S/o Late Mosmat Lakshmania wife of late Bhajjo Rabidas, resident of village and P.O. Mahagama, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda

¶9

Dilip kumar Ravidas aged about 46 years, S/o Late Padarath Rabidas son of late Gopi Rabidas, resident of village and P.O. Mahagama, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda

¶10

Sanjay kr. Gupta aged about 46 years S/o Late Mayadevi wife of Ganpat Bhagat, resident of village and P.O. Mahagama, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda

¶11

Janardan Bansfore aged about 58 years son of late Gujar Bansfore, resident of village and P.O. Mahagama, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda

¶12

Devendra Prasad Gupta alias Devendra Prasad Bhagat, aged about 54 years son of Ganpat Bhagat, resident of village and P.O. Mahagama, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda

¶13

Sudhir Rajak aged about 58 years son of late Ram Swaroop Rajak, resident of village and P.O. Mahagama, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda

¶14

Pramod Sah aged about 57 years son of late Nokhi Sah, resident of village and P.O. Mahagama, P.S. Mahagama, District Godda

¶15

… … Petitioners

¶16

Versus

¶17

The State of Jharkhand

¶18

Dr. Khagen Mahto, S/o not known to the petitioner presently posted as Circle Officer, Mahagama, P.O. and P.S. Mahagama, District Godda … … Opp. Parties ---

¶19

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶20

--For the Petitioners : Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Ms. Shalini Shahdeo, Advocate ---

¶21

10 /03.01.2025

¶22

Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶23

2. This contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of order dated 02.02.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1991 of 2012 in which altogether 16 petitioners were present.

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order passed by this Court has not been complied and in spite of availability of land, the writ petitioners have not been provided the required settlement as per the scheme meant for upliftment of SC/ST/BC and the order passed by this court has not been complied.

¶25

4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that a supplementary show-cause has been filed giving the details of the land which is either under settlement or under encroachment by one or the other person and the alleged encroachers have filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 6417 of 2023 wherein a stay order has been passed on account of which no land is available as of now for settlement. She has submitted that once the stay order is vacated in W.P.(C) No. 6417 of 2023, appropriate steps will be taken for the purpose of granting relief to the petitioners who are found entitled.

¶26

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has opposed the submission and has submitted that the facts have not been correctly projected in the show-cause and he submits that the land is available for the purposes of granting relief to the petitioners.

¶27

6. Afte hearing the learned counsel for the parties this court finds that the nature of order passed by this Court in the writ petition reflects that the petitioners were granted liberty to file separate representations before respondent no. 4 who was to look into the grievance of each of the petitioners and pass reasoned order. This court finds that as per the show-cause, interalia, on account of the interim orders passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6417 of 2023 which has been filed on behalf of the alleged encroachers, the allotment is not being made to the petitioners. It has also been submitted that once the stay order is vacated in W.P.(C) No.

¶28

¶29

Pankaj

¶30

6417 of 2023, appropriate steps will be taken for the purpose of granting relief to the petitioners who are found entitled.

¶31

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the opposite parties cannot be said to have willfully and deliberately violated the orders of this Court and accordingly, this Court is not inclined to proceed any further in this contempt proceedings which is hereby dropped.

¶32

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶33

Ganesh Rabidas v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Rabidas v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratan Lal Vs Ganga Lal

Compoter Yadav Vs the State of Bihar through the Circle Officer Ashok Kumar Jha of Godda Anchal

The Management of Ms Telco Limited through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Shri Rajesh Kumar Das Vs Manorama Shrivastava

Ramjee Singh Vs Bokaro Steel City through Its Managing Director Cum Chairman

Samu Pahan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjiv Kumar Maji Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Pr Secretary Law and Justice Department