Telangana High Court Jails Ranga Reddy Collector

Metro India News | Hyderabad : The Telangana High Court has sentenced Ranga Reddy District Collector C. Narayana Reddy to six months’ simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 for wilfully disobeying an order concerning land parcels on the prohibitory properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Justice K. Lakshman suspended the sentence for four weeks, giving the Collector time to challenge the ruling.

The contempt case arose from a writ court direction in August 2025 requiring the Collector to consider, within 60 days, a representation submitted in 2024. The petitioners sought action on a 2022 order by the then Collector and a consequential memo issued by the District Registrar, which had led to the deletion of certain plots from the prohibitory list. The High Court found that the direction had not been complied with despite the Collector having received it in August 2025.

The petitioners had sought a no-objection certificate for their plots in Ranga Reddy district. According to the court’s account, the earlier proceedings covered an adjoining plot and two other plots. The representation asked the authorities to implement the 2022 decision in relation to the petitioners’ land.

The 60-day deadline passed, and the petitioners filed the contempt case on October 15, 2025. The court noted that notices to the petitioners were issued only after the case was filed, followed by a rejection order dated February 26, 2026. The Collector filed a counter on March 13, 2026, relying on the absence of steps by the Revenue Divisional Officer and tahsildar to restore possession to the declarant following a Land Reforms Tribunal order dated January 5, 2004.

The State had challenged that tribunal order in LRA No. 8 of 2022, nearly 18 years later. The appeal was dismissed on April 25, 2026, as time-barred, according to the account before the court. The Collector then passed another rejection order on July 8, 2026, after the petitioners again sought reconsideration following dismissal of the appeal.

Justice Lakshman questioned the Collector’s account of the process. The counter-affidavit said that notices were issued and records were sought from the then tahsildar and RDO upon receipt of the High Court’s order. The court called that statement “palpably false”, noting that the Collector’s March 13 counter included a notice dated December 17, 2025, and that another notice was issued on February 18, 2026. 

The court also examined the hearing held on February 21, 2026. The signature spaces for the RDO, tahsildar and authorised officer were blank, while petitioner No. 2 had signed the relevant column. The court observed that the officers should have signed if they had attended.

Of the four survey numbers identified in the dispute, No. 537 had been removed from the prohibitory list, while Nos. 536, 657 and 658 remained. The court found no explanation for treating the plots differently. It also noted that other survey numbers had been deleted without following the procedure under the 1974 Rules, while the petitioners’ plots continued to be opposed for deletion.