State Cannot Overreach Final Judgments by Raising New Claims: Jharkhand High Court Holds Forest Officials Guilty of Contempt

“One Cannot Be Permitted to Mount a Collateral Attack on Final Judgments by Raising New Pleas” - Jharkhand High Court delivered a scathing ruling against officials of the Forest Department for their willful disobedience of binding court orders. The Division Bench led by Hon’ble Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Hon’ble Justice Deepak Roshan found that the conduct of state officers amounted to contempt of court as they tried to circumvent previous judgments by raising a new plea — that the disputed land was “private forest land.”
The Court remarked: “We hold that once a direct attack was made on the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 593 of 2017 by the State of Jharkhand… and it failed, no collateral attack is permissible… by raising new plea that the subject land is ‘private forest land’.”
The petitioner, Umaayush Multicom Pvt. Ltd., had purchased 74.38 acres of land in Village Tetulia, District Bokaro, via a registered sale deed dated 10.02.2021. This land was originally owned by Izhar Hussain and Akhtar Hussain, whose rights had been upheld in W.P.(C) No. 593 of 2017. That judgment was later affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 786 of 2018, and finally by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 8108 of 2021.
Despite this, letters dated 23.04.2024, 29.04.2024, and 28.10.2024 were issued by the Divisional Forest Officer and the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, challenging the ownership and classification of the land, and prohibiting the petitioner from engaging in “non-forest activity” on grounds that it was “unbroken forest land.”
The core issue was whether the Forest Department’s actions amounted to contempt of the court’s prior rulings.
The Court observed: “It is clearly an attempt to mislead this Court by creating dubious document… There was a deliberate attempt… to argue that the previous orders passed by this Court are incorrect by raising the plea that the land is a ‘private forest land’, which plea was never raised by them in the previous round of litigation.”
Responding to the argument that the forest officials’ letters were merely “advisories,” the Court stated emphatically: “There is no provision of law under which the State Government officials are empowered to issue advisories to citizens particularly when such advisories go against the judgments rendered by this Court which were also upheld up to the Supreme Court.”
The Bench reiterated that the State was bound by the earlier decisions and the attempt to introduce a new plea at this stage was impermissible. The Court quoted the principle laid down in Omprakash Verma v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 13 SCC 158: “A judgment in a Writ Petition which has attained finality, cannot be collaterally challenged on new grounds… No collateral attack is permissible… on the ground that certain facts had not been placed before the Court when it decided it.”
The Court rejected the justification that Respondent No. 2 was not a party to the earlier Writ Petition, observing: “The State Government in that case was represented by the Chief Secretary… He is deemed to have represented all departments of the State Government and so the decision… binds the respondent No.2.”
On the production of unauthenticated documents to claim the land as “private forest land,” the Court found: “The document cannot be said to be of any evidentiary value and cannot be the source of the claim… It is disturbing that the 2nd respondent has gone to such lengths… It shows his mala fide intention to somehow or the other overreach the order passed by this Court…”
Regarding Respondent No. 4’s actions, the Court stated: “For the same reasons as the respondent No.2 has been held guilty of contempt, the respondent No.4 has also to be held in contempt since he too, by supporting the stand… is obstructing the course of justice.”
The Court rejected the belated reliance on the amended Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, noting: “When the notification issued under the Indian Forest Act, 1927… has been set aside… the amendment… cannot revive the said notification… The plea… that the said notification is still holding good today shows the total contempt he also has towards this Court’s judgments.”
On the claim that the land belonged to Bokaro Steel Plant, the Court found no merit, citing a detailed inquiry by the Revenue Officer, Chas, who had deleted the plant’s name from the records and restored the land to the petitioner. The Continuous Khatian issued on 09.03.2022 described the land as “Purani Parti” (old fallow land), not forest land.
In conclusion, the Jharkhand High Court held: “The issuance of letters dt. 23.04.2024 and 29.04.2024 by the 2nd respondent and further letter dt. 28.10.2024 issued by the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest… cannot be countenanced.”
The Court condemned the officials’ conduct as an affront to judicial authority and the rule of law:
“The respondent No.2, even if he is treated as a third party… cannot escape the consequences of aiding and abetting the State for violating the orders… He is guilty of willfully committing Contempt of Court and obstructing the cause of justice.”
Both Respondents No. 2 and 4 were held guilty of contempt. Their actions were deemed an intentional and coordinated effort to undermine judicial orders that had attained finality.

Date of Decision: 17 April 2025