2026:JHHC:6152-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No.1109 of 2025 ----- Mahendra Mehta @ Rakesh Prasad @ Ram Sundar Prasad, aged about 60 years, son of Late Ram Lagan Prasad, resident of village-Hariharganj, Post Office and Police Station – Hariharganj, Distt. Palamau, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Shree Manish Kumar Sinha, son of name not known, the Circle Officer, Hariharganj, P.O. & P.S. – Hariharganj, District-Palamau. … … Opp. Parties ------- CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Surendra Pd. Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II ------ Order No. 03/Dated 9th March, 2026 1. The instant contempt case has been filed against the opposite parties for alleged willful and deliberate non- compliance of order dated 05.05.2023 passed in W.P.(PIL) No.942 of 2020. 2. Show cause has been filed wherein it has been stated that the proceeding for removal of encroachment had been initiated in Plot No.1852 and 1840. 3. So far as encroachment having been found in Plot No.1852 is concerned, it has been made encroachment free after initiating due proceeding as provided under the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act. 4. So far as the Plot No.1840 is concerned, the reference has been made in the order passed by the Circle Officer dated 08.04.2023 that based upon then report of the Deputy 2026:JHHC:6152-DB 2 Inspector (Revenue), Circle Inspector and the Circle Amin, there is no encroachment found over Plot No.1840. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, has disputed that the Plot No.1840 is also having with the encroachment. 6. Since this Court has passed an order, which is the subject matter of the present contempt case, directing the Collector within the meaning of the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act to pass an order after calling upon the affected parties and in view thereof, a decision has been taken, there cannot be any further direction to be passed in exercise of the power conferred to this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 7. The order since has substantially been complied with, hence, we are of the view that there is no need to proceed further with the contempt case. 8. However, if the petitioner is disputing any part of the order, he is at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. 9. Accordingly, the instant contempt case is disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) 9th March, 2026 Birendra/