High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 09 JH CK 2504

Sima Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors.

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 18 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajesh Shankar, J
CASE NUMBER
Cont. Case (Civil) No.662 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 439 words
1.

The present contempt application has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties alleging wilful violation of the interim order dated 29th July, 2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2950 of 2025.

2.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned Sr. S.C.-I, refers to paragraph nos.13 and 14 of the show cause affidavit dated 7th September, 2026 filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.3, which read as under:

“13.

That the answering opposite parties respectfully submit that the photographs annexed herewith clearly demonstrate the actual site of construction and the location of the petitioner's alleged land, from which it would be evident that no construction activity is being carried out over the petitioner's claimed land. As such, the petitioner's allegation that her land has been subjected to illegal interference is wholly misconceived and false. The answering opposite parties have acted strictly in accordance with law and within the limits of the interim order dated 29.07.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court.

14.

That the answering opposite parties submit that the outdoor stadium project is a public purpose project conceived and undertaken for the benefit of the local public and for creation of sports infrastructure in the area. The mere fact that the petitioner is claiming title or possession over a certain parcel of land does not mean that the entire construction work for the outdoor stadium ought to be stopped. It is specifically stated that no construction activity is being carried out on the land claimed by the petitioner, and the work is proceeding only on the land duly identified and demarcated for the project.”

3.

It is, thus, submitted that the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 have not violated the interim order dated 29th July, 2025.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 have not given the clear picture of the situation prevailing over the land in question as the said opposite parties are still occupying the part of the land belonging to the petitioner and are using the same for construction of a stadium.

5.

Be that as it may.

6.

On consideration of the show cause affidavit dated 7th September, 2026, no prima facie case of contempt is made out against the opposite parties and, hence, there is no need to proceed further in the present contempt matter. Since W.P.(C) No.2950 of 2025 is still pending consideration, the petitioner may make appropriate submission regarding her claim over the land in question before the learned Writ Court.

7.

The contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties is, hereby, dropped.

8.

The contempt application is, accordingly, disposed of.