Disposed¶38

Rakesh Ranjan v. The State of Bihar, through its Chief Secretary, Shri Prataya Amrit

Patna HC1 May 2026MJC/128/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, MJC No.128 of 2026 in CWJC No.639 of 2019; Rajiv Roy, J; order dated 01-05-2026; contempt petition for violation of order dated 23.04.2024 in CWJC No. 639 of 2019; petitioner Rakesh Ranjan; opposite parties include District Magistrate, Jehanabad and Circle Officer, Ghosi; show cause relying on petitioner's measurement report Annexure-P/4; fresh verification Letter No. 504 dated 10.04.2026; Anchal Amin report dated 11.04.2026; Agreement No. 02/SBD/2018-19 dated 19.04.2018; sanctioned chainage 7.32 KM versus claimed land at 7.57 KM; land lying unused, no construction activity; MJC disposed of with liberty to petitioner to agitate the matter.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to agitate the matter, if he so wants. ¶38

Rakesh Ranjan Vs The State of Bihar, through its Chief Secretary, Shri Prataya Amrit — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to agitate the matter, if he so wants.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the opposite parties, specially the Circle Officer, Ghosi, Jehanabad, for violation of the order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 639 of 2019.

¶21

Court's answer

This Court is satisfied with the show cause filed by the opposite parties.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Being satisfied with the show cause, the Court disposed of MJC No. 128 of 2026 with liberty to the petitioner to agitate the matter, if he so wants.

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.128 of 2026 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.639 of 2019 (Rakesh Ranjan v. The State of Bihar and others) - Contempt petition seeking initiation of contempt proceeding against the opposite parties, specially the Circle Officer, Ghosi, Jehanabad, for alleged violation of the order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 639 of 2019. Opposite party nos. 04 and 06 filed a show cause stating that, per the petitioner's own measurement report (Annexure-P/4), only limited earthwork carried out by the Irrigation Department was found; fresh verification was directed vide Letter No. 504 dated 10.04.2026, and the Anchal Amin's report dated 11.04.2026 established that no further work had been carried out and the earlier position remained unchanged; the work under 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 is at 7.57 KM chainage, i.e., beyond the sanctioned project limit, so any earthwork found on his land cannot be treated as part of any sanctioned governmental activity and is not liable to acquisition; the land is lying unused with no ongoing construction activity. Satisfied with the show cause filed by the opposite parties, Rajiv Roy, J disposed of MJC No. 128 of 2026 with liberty to the petitioner to agitate the matter, if he so wants.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.128 of 2026 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.639 of 2019

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Rakesh Ranjan Son of Late Ramshidh Sharma @ Ramsidh Sharma, Resident of Village Hardashpur, P.O.- Saho Bigha, P.S.- Ghosi, District- Jehanabad.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar, through its Chief Secretary, Shri Prataya Amrit Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

Shri Santosh Kumar Mall, The Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

Shri C.K. Anil, The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

¶11

Shri Allangkita Pandey, District Magistrate, Jehanabad.

¶12

Shri Arun Kumar Paswan, The Executive Officer, Irrigation Department, Jehanabad.

¶13

Shri Sudhir Tiwary, The Circle Officer, Ghosi, District- Jehanabad.

¶14

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶15

======================================================

¶16

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Government Advocate 2 ======================================================

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶18

4 01-05-2026 Heard the parties.

¶19

The present petition has been preferred for the

¶20

following relief/s:

¶21

(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."

¶22

Patna High Court MJC No.128 of 2026(4) dt.01-05-2026 2/4

¶23

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:

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

9. That pursuant thereto, the Anchal Amin submitted report dated

¶27

11.04.2026, which clearly establishes that no further work has been carried out and the earlier position remains unchanged.

¶28

10. That it is further submitted that as per official records, the work under

¶29

Patna High Court MJC No.128 of 2026(4) dt.01-05-2026

¶30

3/4

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34