Sunil Kumar Choubey vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

In W.P.(Cr.) No.50 of 2023, the petitioner made a grievance that the lands comprised under plot nos. 827, 830, 848, 863 and 866 were illegally occupied and encroached by Late Basist Choubey and as regards construction of mud road on the said land an information was given by the Circle Officer to the Officer-in-Charge, Bhawnathpur PS but no action was taken thereon.

In the aforesaid facts, this Court gave a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa and Superintendent of Police, Garhwa who were required to look into the matter and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. In the show-cause reply filed on behalf of the contemnors, it is stated that an inquiry was conducted and information as regards possession of the disputed land was transmitted to the Superintendent of Police. As per the respondents, no road was constructed over the lands belonging to the petitioner and, in fact, a road has been constructed over plot nos.848, 863 and 866.

Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report submitted by the Circle Officer, Bhawnathpur is based on wrong facts and the respondent-authorities have not taken any real action on the complaint made by the petitioner.

However, in a contempt proceeding this Court is not inclined to go into the disputed questions of fact. As per the respondents, an inquiry was caused in the matter and certain facts were ascertained. In our opinion, this shall be substantial compliance of the writ Court’s order and while so, the present contempt case is dismissed.