The High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad has sentenced the District Collector of Ranga Reddy, C. Narayana Reddy, to six months of simple imprisonment for willful disobedience of a judicial directive. The order, pronounced by Justice K. Lakshman, also imposed a fine of ₹2,000 on the official. While the court directed that the sentence be executed, it granted a stay on the imprisonment for a period of four weeks, providing the respondent an opportunity to challenge the ruling in a higher appellate forum.

The contempt proceedings originated from a writ petition, W.P. No. 22093 of 2025, which was disposed of by the court on August 5, 2025. In that order, the court had directed the District Collector to consider a representation submitted by the petitioners, Mrs. P. Shivaleela and another, seeking the deletion of specific plots from the list of prohibitory properties maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioners had requested the de-notification of their land in Survey Nos. 536, 537, 657, and 658, situated at Manne Muthyalamma Kunta in the Turkayamjal Municipality, arguing that their case was identical to adjacent plots that had already been removed from the prohibitory list by the authorities in 2022.

Despite the judicial mandate requiring the respondent to conclude the review process within 60 days, the Collector failed to take any action within the stipulated timeframe. The court observed that the respondent only initiated procedural steps after the contempt case was filed on October 15, 2025, and notice was served. Even then, the subsequent orders issued by the collector were found to be inconsistent with the directives and, in some respects, misleading.

Discrepancies in Administrative Compliance During the adjudication of the contempt petition, the court identified several inconsistencies in the affidavits filed by the respondent. The District Collector had asserted that he had conducted hearings and sought reports from the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and the Tahsildar to justify his decision to reject the petitioners' request. However, the court found these claims to be factually unsupported. In the hearing proceedings dated February 21, 2026, the columns designated for the signatures of the RDO, Tahsildar, and the Authorized Officer were left blank, undermining the claim that these officials had actively participated in the decision-making process. The court characterized the statement made in the counter-affidavit regarding these proceedings as “palpably false.”

The court also took note of the contradictory treatment of the subject lands. While the government had already deleted Survey No. 537 from the prohibitory properties list, it continued to refuse similar relief for the adjacent lands in Survey Nos. 536, 657, and 658. The respondent sought to justify this by arguing that the proper procedure under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974, specifically the failure to follow Rules 10A(6) through 10A(8) regarding the formal reversion of land via a panchnama in Form XI-A, precluded the de-notification of the properties.

Judicial Limits and the Binding Nature of Orders Justice Lakshman rejected the respondent's reliance on these procedural nuances, noting that the scope of contempt jurisdiction is strictly confined to determining whether an existing court order has been complied with. Citing the Supreme Court’s stance in Jalim Singh v. Nand Kishore and Union of India v. Subedar Devassy P.V. , the court emphasized that it cannot act as an appellate authority to revisit the merits of the original judgment or entertain defenses that challenge the legality of the order itself.

The court reiterated that the responsibility of the contemnor is to obey the command of the court, regardless of their personal disagreement with the legal basis of that command. As the court stated: “Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt.”

The court further highlighted that the respondent’s justification—that the lands had not been restored to the declarant—was effectively nullified by the fact that the Land Reforms Tribunal’s order from 2004, which excluded these lands from the ceiling purview, had already attained finality. A state-led appeal against this order, LRA No. 8 of 2022, had been dismissed on grounds of limitation, further weakening the respondent’s plea that the land status remained in legal limbo.

A Failure of Accountability The ruling underscored the necessity for public officials to adhere to judicial timelines and instructions. The court found that the District Collector’s failure to act within the 60-day period, followed by his issuance of a rejection order only after the initiation of legal proceedings, demonstrated a lack of bona fide intent. The court remarked, “Instead of implementing the order under contempt in such manner, the respondent had disobeyed the same, despite granting sufficient opportunity. Thus, the act of the respondent amounts to willful and deliberate disobedience and violation of the order under contempt.”

The finality of the judgment underscores the severe repercussions for public servants who disregard judicial directives. By sentencing the District Collector to six months’ imprisonment, the High Court has reaffirmed that administrative convenience or procedural disputes cannot be weaponized to bypass the clear instructions of the judiciary. The four-week suspension of the sentence provides a window for the respondent to appeal, but the court’s finding of willful disobedience remains the primary outcome of this litigation. Unless overturned, the order demands that the District Collector must either facilitate the requested property de-notification or serve the prescribed custodial sentence.