2026:JHHC:22676 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 497 of 2026 --- Nirmal Kachhap alias Nirmal Munda, son of Deosingh Munda, resident of Village Kiski, P.O.- Hulhundu, P.S.- Kharsidag, District- Ranchi … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sri Prabhat Bhushan Singh, Circle Officer, Namkum, District- Ranchi …. … Opp. Parties --- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --- For the Petitioner : Mr. J.J. Sanga, Advocate Mr. Randhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr.S.C.-II Mrs. Nirupama, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-II --- Order No. 05 Dated: 31.07.2026 1. The present contempt petition has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding as against the opposite party no.2 alleging willful violation of order dated 17.03.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 144 of 2025. 2. Pursuant to order dated 10.07.2026, Mr. Kamal Kishor Singh, the Circle Officer, Namkum is physically present before this Court. The said officer has also filed a supplementary show cause affidavit on 28.07.2026. 3. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Sr.S.C.-II refers to paragraph nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the said supplementary show cause affidavit, which read as under:- “4. That, upon receipt of the relevant record and upon a local and revenue inquiry conducted through the Revenue Sub-Inspector, the Circle Inspector and the Anchal Amin, the answering opposite party has now furnished to the petitioner Nirmal Kachhap the certified copy of the relevant Panji-II record pertaining to the said vaasgit parcha, and has likewise furnished to Agnesh Lohar, son of Dhagu Lohar, the certified copy of the Vasagit parcha issued in his favour and certified copy of 2026:JHHC:22676 2 register of vaasgit parcha as such the order dated 17.03.2025 has been duly and fully complied with. 5. That the said inquiry further revealed that the land in question, being Mouza Kisaki, Thana No. 292, Khata No. 80, Plot No. 551, Rakba 03 decimal, stands originally recorded in the khatiyan in the name of Shingrai @ Kheto Munda, son of Devsidh Munda (kaum Munda), and that the vasagit parcha earlier issued in the name of the said Agnesh Lohar vide Case No. 42/1991-92 (accepted/order dated 18.11.1991) appears to have been erroneously issued, in as much as the said Agnesh Lohar, upon local inquiry at his residence, has himself stated that he has no concern with, or possession over, the land in question, and has no objection to correction of the revenue entries. 6. That local inspection carried out by the Anchal Amin at the spot further disclosed that the petitioner Nirmal Kachhap, being the descendant of the recorded khatiyani raiyat, is found to be in long and peaceful possession of the land in question, having raised construction thereupon several years ago; the petitioner has also filed a written application before the answering opposite party seeking cancellation of the erroneous jamabandi and restoration/recording of rakba in the original jamabandi. 7. That, in view of the aforesaid findings, the answering opposite party has initiated proceedings for deletion/correction of the erroneous jamabandi recorded in the name of the said Agnesh Lohar, being Case No. 07/2026-27, and upon approval of the competent authority, the jamabandi shall be duly deleted and the original jamabandi correspondingly updated. Copies of certified copy of Vaasgit Parcha, Panji-II, register of Vaasgit Parcha have been annexed as Annexure-A series to the said supplementary show cause affidavit.” 4. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Sr.S.C.-II, further submits that the process of cancelling the “Vaasgit” settlement made in favour of Angesh Lohar will 2026:JHHC:22676 3 be completed positively within six weeks. 5. Considering the aforesaid statements made in the supplementary show cause affidavit dated 28.07.2026 as well as the submission of Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Sr.S.C.-II, there is no need to further proceed in the present matter. 6. The contempt proceedings as against the opposite party no. 2 as well as the officer, who is physically present before this Court today, is hereby dropped. 7. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. 8. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law for redressal of his subsisting grievance, if any. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 31, 2026 Ritesh/ Uploaded on 31.07.2026