Hyderabad, Nov. 9: The Telangana High Court has sentenced Ranga Reddy District Collector to six months of simple imprisonment for wilfully disobeying a judicial direction.
Justice K. Lakshman also imposed a fine of ₹2,000 while allowing a contempt petition. However, the Court suspended the sentence for four weeks.
The contempt case concerned the Collector’s failure to consider a representation seeking the removal of certain lands from the prohibitory properties list. The list is maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.
Collector Failed to Follow Earlier Court Direction
The petitioners had sought no-objection certificates for their respective land parcels. They relied on an earlier decision taken by the then District Collector in August 2022.
Following that decision, the District Registrar issued a memorandum in September 2022. It permitted the removal of certain plots from the prohibitory properties register.
However, the petitioners’ disputed lands continued to remain under restriction. Some adjoining plots had already been removed from the list.
In August 2025, the High Court directed the incumbent Collector to consider the representation. It ordered him to take an appropriate decision within 60 days.
Despite receiving the order that month, the Collector failed to comply within the prescribed period. Consequently, the petitioners filed contempt proceedings on October 15, 2025.
High Court Questions Collector’s Explanation
The High Court noted that the Collector issued notices to the petitioners only after contempt proceedings began.
He eventually rejected their representation on February 26, 2026. A subsequent rejection order followed on July 8, 2026, despite another direction to reconsider the matter.
The Court found serious inconsistencies in the Collector’s explanation and counter-affidavit. He claimed to have obtained reports from the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and Tahsildar.
He also claimed that the authorities participated in a hearing. However, the relevant records did not support these statements.
The Court examined the hearing proceedings dated February 21, 2026. It found that the signature columns for the RDO, Tahsildar and Authorised Officer were blank.
The Court described the Collector’s statement about the proceedings in his counter-affidavit as “palpably false”.
Dispute Over Four Survey Numbers
The case involved four survey numbers. Survey No. 537 had been removed from the prohibitory properties list.
However, Survey Nos. 536, 657 and 658 continued to remain under restriction.
The High Court questioned why Survey No. 537 and other parcels were removed. It found no satisfactory justification for treating the petitioners’ lands differently.
The Court also referred to an earlier Land Reforms Tribunal (LRT) order dated January 5, 2004.
High Court Rejects Collector’s Defence
The Collector argued that the lands had not been restored to the declarant through a panchnama in Form XI-A. He relied on the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974.
He contended that revenue authorities had not completed the procedures under Rules 10A(6), 10A(7) and 10A(8). Therefore, he argued, the lands could not be removed from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A.
Rejecting this defence, the High Court held that contempt proceedings could not reopen the correctness of an earlier judicial direction.
The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in Jalim Singh v. Nand Kishore (2026) and Union of India v. Subedar Devassy P.V. (2006).
It reiterated that a party cannot refuse to comply with a judicial order by questioning its legal correctness.
“Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed,” the Court observed.
State’s Appeal Against LRT Order Dismissed
The High Court also considered the State’s challenge to the LRT order dated January 5, 2004.
The State had filed Land Revenue Appeal No. 8 of 2022. However, the appeal was dismissed on April 25, 2026, on the ground of limitation.
The appeal had been instituted nearly 18 years after the LRT order.
The High Court concluded that the Collector knew about its direction but failed to implement it despite sufficient opportunity.
Finding wilful and deliberate disobedience, Justice K. Lakshman allowed the contempt petition. The Court sentenced the Collector to six months of simple imprisonment and imposed a ₹2,000 fine.
However, it suspended the sentence for four weeks.
Now you can get the latest stories from Indtoday on Telegram every day. Click the link to subscribe. Click to follow Indtoday’s Facebook page, Twitter, and Instagram. For all the latest Hyderabad News updates and Follow us on GoogleNews and Follow Our Youtube Channel on Google
