Two revenue officials awarded 2-month jail term

Judgment in contempt case filed by three Mallannasagar project oustees for not complying with High Court direction

August 21, 2019 12:12 am | Updated 12:12 am IST - HYDERABAD

Two Revenue Department officials of Siddipet district were punished with simple imprisonment for two months in a case of contempt by the Telangana High Court here on Tuesday.

Justice M.S. Ramchander Rao passed the order in the contempt case filed by three persons accusing the officials of wilfully disobeying the HC’s earlier order not to dispossess the petitioners of their lands for Mallannasagar project.

The judge imposed an amount of ₹ 2,000 fine for each of the officials - Gajwel Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) D. Vijayender Reddy and Kondapaka Tahasildar B. Prabhulu. The sentence of imprisonment, however, was suspended for six weeks.

The petitioners Ch. Narayana Reddy, Ch. Suguna and Ch. Ramana Reddy knocked the doors of the HC in 2018 alleging that their lands spread over nearly 17 acres were being acquired forcibly to construct Mallannasagar as part of Kaleswaram project.

The judge passed an interim direction not to dispossess the petitioners of their lands till rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements were paid to them under Section 38 of the Land Acquisition Act-2013.

The petitioners approached the HC again nearly six months ago charging that the Revenue officials dug up their lands and damaged trees on some parts of the land despite the HC’s stay order. The petitioners sought action against the authorities under the Contempt of Court Act as the officials tried to occupy their lands not complying with the HC direction.

Notices issued

The judge issued notices to the officials. On perusing their counter affidavits and hearing arguments of the petitioners’ counsel B. Rachna Reddy, the judge passed the direction awarding jail term to the two officials.

If the officials were of the opinion that the petitioners were not entitled to rehabilitation and resettlement benefits, they should have filed an application for modification of the court order, the judge observed. They also had the option of getting the order set aside or stayed, the judge said in the order.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.