Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12837 (JHR)

KAUSHALYA DEVI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cont.(Cvl)/462/2026 · 2026-05-15

Rajesh Shankar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:15034 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No.462 of 2026 ----- Kaushalya Devi, wife of Late Dhananjay Routiya, resident of village Chainpur, P.O. & P.S. Chainpur, District Gumla. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ramji Tigga, District Sub-Registrar, Gumla. 3. Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Circle Officer, Chainpur, District Gumla. .......... Opp. Parties. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. K. S. Nanda, Advocate For the State : AC to AAG-III ----- Order No.02 Date: 15.05.2026 1. The present contempt case has been filed by the petitioner for initiating contempt proceeding against the opposite party nos.2 and 3 alleging violation of the interim orders dated 27th August, 2024 and 15th October, 2024. 2. A show cause affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 and 3, paragraphs-7 and 8 of which read as under:- “7. That it is admitted fact that the petitioner filed the representation before the respondent No. 02, District- Sub- Registrar, Gumla on 23.12.2024 but due to workload of the office and forgetfulness, the sale deed No. 679/2025 and sale deed No. 680/2025 are executed in the office of District- Sub- Registrar, Gumla therefore the respondent No. 02 tenders his unconditional apology before the Hon'ble Court for this act. 8. That it is admitted fact that the petitioner has also filed representation before the respondent No. 03, Circle Officer, Chainpur dated 02.09.2024 but due to work load of the office and forgetfulness, mutation of this land in question is done vide mutation case No. 99 R 27/2024-25, mutation case No. 100 R 27/2024-25 and mutation case No. 106 R 27/2024-25 but as soon as this matter came to knowledge of the Circle Officer, 2026:JHHC:15034 2 Chainpur, filed mutation appeal case No. 14/2025-26, mutation appeal case No. 15/2025-26 and mutation appeal case No. 16/2025-26 respectively before the Court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector Chainpur for rejection of the aforesaid mutation. After hearing both the parties, in the light of the order of the Hon'ble Court in W.P. (C) No. 4430/2024 dated 27.08.2024, the mutation appeal is allowed and mutation order of the Circle Officer, Chainpur is rejected on 08.11.2025 and rest contention of the petitioner is wrong hence denied.” 3. Considering the aforesaid statements made in paragraphs-7 and 8 of the show cause affidavit, there is no need to further proceed in the matter. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite party nos.2 and 3 is hereby dropped. 4. The present contempt case stands disposed of. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 15th May, 2026 Sanjay/ Uploaded on 15.05.2026