The Telangana High Court sentenced the Collector of Ranga Reddy district to six months' simple imprisonment for wilful disobedience of its order. However, the sentence was suspended for four weeks to allow the officer to appeal.
Justice K Lakshman granted the contempt petition, stating that the Collector had failed to dispose of a representation ordered by the writ court within the 60-day timeframe.
The dispute stems from the implementation of an order by the then Collector in August 2022. This order deleted certain plots from the Prohibitory Properties Register under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Consequently, the petitioners sought no-objection clearances for those plots and filed a petition in the High Court. After the decision was not given effect to, the writ court directed the incumbent Collector to consider their representation for 2024 and take a decision within 60 days.
Order served but no action taken
The order was served that month but no decision followed. The contempt petition was filed on October 15, 2025. The court recorded that it was only after that filing that the Collector issued notices to the petitioners, held a hearing and passed a rejection order on February 26, 2026. A second rejection order was passed on July 8, 2026, after the court once again directed a reconsideration. This time, the reconsideration followed the dismissal of the State's Land Revenue Appeal No. 8 of 2022. That appeal challenged a Land Reforms Tribunal order of January 5, 2004, and had been filed after a lapse of about 18 years. It was dismissed on April 25, 2026, as barred by limitation.
The court found the Collector's counter affidavit “palpably false”. It stated that notices were issued and material was called for from the then Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer upon receipt of the High Court's order. However, during the hearing on February 21, 2026, the columns for the signatures of the RDO, the Tahsildar and the Authorised Officer were left blank, even though the petitioner present signed in his column.
Court criticises Collector's action
The court also criticised selective compliance. Of the four survey numbers under dispute, Survey No. 537 was removed from the prohibitory list while Survey Nos. 536, 657 and 658 were retained, with no explanation for the differing treatment. The court pointed out that the respondent deleted Survey No. 537 and several other survey numbers from the prohibitory list of properties under Section 22-A of the Act, 1908 without following the procedure as outlined in the Rules, 1974. At the same time, the respondent opposed the deletion of subject plots from Section 22-A of the Act, 1908 without any valid grounds.
The Collector's principal defence was that the 2004 tribunal order had never been given effect. No land had been reverted to the declarant under a panchanama in Form XI-A and unless the procedure under Rules 10A(6), 10A(7) and 10A(8) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 was followed by the RDO and the Tahsildar, the plots could not be de-notified.
Vivek Shukla is a management graduate who has worked in corporate worked for 20 years and is now pursuing his passion — news.
