2026:JHHC:16281-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Cvl.) No.802 of 2025 ------ Mansha Singh @ Rajesh Singh aged about 45 years S/O Late Budhu Singh, Resident of village-Hethu P.O-Hinoo & P.S. Airport, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Manjunath Bhajanti, The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, office status of the Collectoriate building, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi 3. Kamal Kishor Singh, The Circle Officer, Namkum Circle at circle office Namkum, P.O. Namkum, P.S.-Namkum, District-Ranchi 4. The Secretary, Land Reforms department, Government of Jharkhand at Ranchi having office of Project Building, PO+PS- Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi (Jharkhand) ..... .... Opp. Parties CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kr. Pandey, Advocate Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Malityar, Adv. Mr. Anukul Gaurav, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shubham Gautam, AC to AAG-V ------ 10/Dated: 08.06.2026 1. It is a case for initiation of contempt for alleged, willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 18.12.2023 passed in L.P.A. No.413 of 2023. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the concerned Opp. Party has submitted by referring to paragraph-5 of the order dated 18.12.2023, which is the subject matter of the present contempt case that the order has been passed by the Circle Officer on 12.02.2026 which is after inviting objection from the respective parties. 3. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:16281-DB 2 4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. This Court has gone through the show cause dated 17.02.2026, wherein, the order passed by the authority dated 12.02.2026 has been appended as Annexure-A series (page-9). 6. This Court, after going through the said order, has found that the Circle Officer by making reference of the various documents, has come out with the conclusion that the rival claim of right over the property in question is the subject matter of the lis, which is to be adjudicated by the competent court of civil jurisdiction. The reference of one Probate Case No.35 of 2002 and Probate Title Suit No.04 of 2004 has also been made therein. 7. However, Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order which has been passed by the Circle Officer is not as per the correct position of the document which has been dealt with by the contesting party. 8. But, this Court is of the view that herein, the dispute over the right and title of the property is involved, which is none of the business of the revenue authority to decide the same, rather, the same needs to be adjudicated by the competent court of civil jurisdiction and to that effect, due observation has been made by the concerned Circle Officer, vide order dated 12.02.2026. 9. This Court, considering the fact in entirety, is of the view that the instant contempt case is to be closed and accordingly, is being closed. 10. The petitioner is at liberty to raise the dispute before the 2026:JHHC:16281-DB 3 competent court of civil jurisdiction, if he so wishes. 11. If the dispute will be raised, the competent court of civil jurisdiction will decide the issue independently and not being prejudiced by any of the observation made by the revenue authority. 12. Accordingly, the instant contempt case stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 08.06.2026 Rohit/-