Shivangi Prakash-
Published on: August 24, 2021, at 10:49 IST
Six senior IAS and IFS officers have breathed a sigh of relief after the Telangana High Court overturned a single judge’s decision to sentence them to six months in prison for Contempt of Court.
If the respondents were harmed by the earlier orders granted in 2010, a bench of Chief Justice Hima Kohli and Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy enabled them to seek proper legal remedies.
Two IAS officers and two IFS officers were among the officials sentenced to prison.
On July 31, the Telangana High Court convicted Special Chief Secretary for Forests, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Chief Wildlife Warden, District Collector and Additional Collector, Ranga Reddy district, and divisional forest, to six months imprisonment.
In a writ suit filed by Mohd. Sirajuddin and nine others claiming rights to 383 acres of property in Maheshwaram village in Rangareddy district, a single-judge bench of the High Court issued the decisions. In 2009, a single judge bench ordered the six authorities to make a definitive decision within six months on the acquisition of land for conversion into a Reserve Forest.
The petitioners took their case to the High Court, claiming that the directives had not been followed. Following a hearing, the Court sentenced them to six months in prison and fined them each Rs 2000.
Following the single judge order granted in 2009, the state government issued two orders in 2010, according to the officials’ lawyer.
The claim of the petitioners, as well as the evidence presented by them, was confirmed, and it was determined that the relevant land was covered by the Land Ceiling Act, according to the counsel. Furthermore, the area had been designated as excess.
The officers had followed the directives, according to the lawyer, and the respondents should have taken appropriate legal action if they had any complaints. Instead, they filed a contempt petition after waiting five years.
According to the lawyers, this fact was also stated before the learned Single Judge but was missed.
The contempt petition’s scope is confined to bringing a purposeful breach/default of compliance, not events that occurred after the order was issued.
