( 2026:JHHC:29352 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Civil Case No. 433 of 2025 ---- Aspire Agro Industries, a Proprietorship Firm, having its office at Beed Bunglow, Tatisilwai, P.O Tatisilwai, P.S. Tatisilwal, District Ranchi, through its Proprietor Shri Devendra Nath Mahto, aged about 52 years, son of Indra Nath Mahto, resident of Beed Bunglow, Tatisilwal, P.O. Tatisilwai, P.S. Tatisilwai, District Ranchi, Jharkhand .......Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Mr. Nitin Kumar Gupta, son of not known to the petitioner, the Forester, Ranchi Forest Division, Ranchi, having its office at Mahilong, P.O. Tatisilwai, P.S. Tatisilwai, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner, the Forest Range Officer, Ranchi East Zone, Mahilong, P.O. Mahilong, P.S. Mahilong, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. .....Respondent(s) --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate --- 08/ Dated: 29.09.2026 1. In order to decide this contempt application, it would be profitable to refer the order dated 05.05.2026 passed by this Court, which is extracted herein below: “Pursuant to the earlier order, the officials are present through VC. It has been informed that, due to miscommunication of the order, the action was taken by the respondents and there was no intention to do anything that would hamper the majesty of the Court. 2. It has further been submitted by Mr. Ashok Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that pursuant to the said miscommunication, the incident occurred, thereafter a complaint case was filed by the petitioner. A compromise has also been arrived at, and sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- has also been paid to the petitioner. 3. Having regard to the aforesaid fact and the statement made by the Department of Forest, Jharkhand, Area Hafatbera, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ( 2026:JHHC:29352 ) he requires one day's time to seek instructions regarding the fact. Accordingly, list this case on 06.05.2026. 4. The personal appearance of the officials is dispensed with.” 2. From the aforesaid order, it is crystal clear that the respondents have committed some mistake and for that, they have entered into compromise and paid Rs. 2,30,000/- to the petitioner. 3. Having regard to the above, the instant contempt application stands disposed of with the observation that the concerned opposite party shall not disturb the petitioner in future, save and except in the case where there is judgment with regard to the property in question, by the competent court of civil jurisdiction. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 29.09.2026 Abha/-