Villagers of Hariharpur, Circle Birni, Represented through Pappu Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Villagers of Hariharpur, Circle Birni, Represented through Pappu Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt case closed and disposed of; pending interlocutory application(s), if any, disposed of; petitioner at liberty to move appropriate application depending upon the outcome of W.P.(C) Filing No. 13803 of 2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the opposite parties willfully and deliberately disobeyed the order dated 08.07.2025 passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 3253 of 2024, such that the contempt case should proceed.

Court's answer

This Court held that it is not a case where the concerned opposite party acted willfully and deliberately in defying the order dated 08.07.2025; reasonable reason was shown, i.e., the ad-interim order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(C) Filing No. 13803 of 2025; hence it is not a case where the contempt case is to proceed further.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt (civil) for alleged willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 08.07.2025 in W.P.(PIL) No. 3253 of 2024, concerning encroachments over the Aam Rasta under Khata No. 10, Plot No. 443, recorded as Gairmajrua Aam Rasta, Village Hariharpur, Circle Birni, District Giridih. The show cause disclosed that due proceeding was initiated under Section 3 of the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 with notices to the alleged encroachers; most encroachments were removed except those of Mangar Vishwakarma and Ram Kishun Vishwakarma, whose notice dated 18.11.2025 (Memo No. 1265) was stayed by ad-interim order of the Writ Court in W.P.(C) Filing No. 13803 of 2025 [Shakti Rana vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.]. Held: the opposite party did not act willfully or deliberately in defying the order and reasonable reason was shown; the contempt case was not to proceed further and was closed and disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate application depending upon the outcome of the pending writ petition. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also disposed of. (Division Bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad, JJ.; decision dated 17th April, 2026.)

[2026:JHHC:10995-DB]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Cvl.) No. 1281 of 2025

---------

Villagers of Hariharpur, Circle Birni, District Giridih, represented through Pappu Kumar Saw, aged about 31 years, S/o Somar Saw, R/o Village Hariharpur, Circle Birni, P.O. Palougiya, P.S. Birni, District-Giridih.

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand.

Awadesh Kumar, The Circle Officer, Birni Circle, P.O. & P.S. Birni, District Giridih, Jharkhand.

… … Opp. Parties

---------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, GA-V ---------

05/Dated: 17^th April, 2026

The present contempt case has been filed for alleged, willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 08.07.2025 passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 3253 of 2024.

Show cause has been filed.

Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted by referring to the stand inter alia taken in the said show cause that in pursuance of the power as conferred under Section 3 of the Jharkhand Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, due proceeding has been initiated. The notices had been issued to the alleged encroachers.

It has been submitted by referring to paragraphs-7 and 8 of the said show cause that most of the encroachments have been removed, save and except, in respect of two persons, namely, Mangar Vishwakarma and Ram Kishun Vishwakarma. It has also been stated therein that as per the enquiry report of the Anchal Amin, the aforesaid persons were found to have encroached upon the Aam Rasta situated under Khata No. 10, Plot No. 443, which is recorded as Gairmajrua Aam Rasta.

Page | 1

[2026:JHHC:10995-DB]

It has been submitted that the person whose name has been referred in paragraph-7 has approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) Filing No. 13803 of 2025 [Shakti Rana vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.] in which the notice issued by the concerned opposite party was challenged. It has been stated in paragraph-12 that the notice dated 18.11.2025 as contained in Memo No. 1265 has been stayed and the concerned opposite party has been restrained in removing the structure in question without permission of the Court.

It has further been stated in paragraph-15 that except the aforesaid two persons, all other encroachments have already been removed.

This Court, considering the show cause, is of the view that it is not a case where the concerned opposite party has acted willfully and deliberately in defying the order rather the reasonable reason has been shown, i.e., ad-interim order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(C) Filing No. 13803 of 2025. Hence, this Court is of the view that it is not a case where the contempt case is to proceed further.

Accordingly, the present contempt case is closed and as such, disposed of.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any also stands disposed of.

Petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate application depending upon the outcome of the W.P.(C) Filing No. 13803 of 2025.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

17^th April, 2026

Saurabh /-

Page | 2