2026:JHHC:10984 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 291 of 2026 Gokul Nayak ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sri Navin Purty, Circle Officer, Chakulia, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur ….. Opposite Parties ----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Badan Choubey, Advocate For O.P.No.2: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, A.A.G-III ----- 02/17.04.2026 The present contempt application has been filed against the O.P.No.2 alleging wilful disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3001/2025. 2. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned A.A.G-III appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2, refers to paragraph 15 of the show cause affidavit dated 07.04.2026 filed on behalf of the said opposite party, which reads as under: “15. That it is further stated that on 19.09.2025 the answering respondent No.2 observed the documents submitted by both parties and the data available on the Jharbhoomi Portal reveals that the land in question has been previously sold and has undergone various transfers. Since the land described by the applicant has been previously transferred and is chronologically recorded in the names of Tata Steel and others on various record. It was concluded that re-entering the first party’s name in the online Register-2 does not appear appropriate and if both parties have any objections regarding ownership or transfer, they can file their claim in the appropriate Civil Court. Photocopy of the order dated 19.09.2025 is annexed as Annexure-A.” 3. It is thus submitted that the aforesaid order of this Court has now been complied. 2026:JHHC:10984 4. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner has wrongly been deleted from the revenue record. 5. Be that as it may. 6. Since the O.P.No.2 has already passed a reasoned order dated 19.09.2025 in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court, there is no need to further proceed with the matter. 7. The contempt proceeding as against the O.P.No.2 is dropped. 8. The present contempt application stands disposed of. 9. The petitioner is however at liberty to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law against the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the O.P.No.2. Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)