2026:JHHC:20517 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Contempt Case (Civil) No. 346 of 2026 ------ Miss Shivantika, aged about 25 years, daughter of Sudhir Kumar, resident of Flat No.203-204 Shalimar Singh, Block B, Pundag P.O. Kathal Morh, P.S. Jagannathpur, under town out post (Police) Pundag, District Ranchi, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shri Krishna Murari Tirkey, Circle officer, Satbarwa Anchal, P.O. and P.S. Satbarwa, District Palamu, Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. R.R. Mishra, Advocate Mr. Krishna Nand Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwary, G.P. III ------ 02/10.07.2026 This contempt petition has been filed for non-compliance of the order dated 05.09.2024 passed in W.P. (C) No.3139 of 2024. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is granddaughter of Late Brij Mohan Prasad, erstwhile holder of the tenancy. He submits that on 18.09.2018, the land possession certificate was issued by the Circle Officer, Satbarwa disclosing the possession of Lal Mohan Prasad and Brij Mohan Prasad. He submits that a piece of land was sold by Brij Mohan Prasad to one Reeta Devi, wife of Kanhai Choudhary in the year 2002 and the said land has been mutated in the year 2014 contained at Page 22 of the rejoinder to the show cause. In this background, he submits that the Circle Office has camouflaged and in absence of any document, has declared the possession saying that they are in possession since 20 years, 39 years and 50 years respectively. 3. The question remains that if the person who are already in possession since 20 years, 39 years and 50 years respectively, how the possession certificate has been issued by the Circle Officer in the name of Lal Mohan Prasad and Brij Mohan Prasad on 18.09.2018 and further piece of land was mutated in the name of purchaser, Reeta Devi in the year 2014 which clearly suggests that on wrong assumption, the Circle Officer has passed the order, rejecting the mutation of the petitioner. The then Circle 2026:JHHC:20517 Officer passed the order on a holiday which was challenged by the petitioner before the higher authority and the appellate authority has set aside the said order and remanded back to the Circle Officer to decide afresh and the case was pending before the Circle Officer and he was not taking any action and in that background, W.P. (C) No.3139 of 2024 was filed before this court and by order dated 05.09.2024, it was disposed of directing the Circle Officer to decide the said case expeditiously. Thereafter, he has passed the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner by the order dated 25.01.2026 however, the writ court disposed of the matter directing to decide the said case expeditiously. Thereafter, order has been passed which is required to be considered by the competent court where the said order can be tested. In that view of the matter, the contempt proceeding is dropped with liberty to the petitioner to avail the available remedy. The contempt petition is disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 10.07.2026 Anit Uploaded 14.07.2026