Telangana HC Raps Rangareddy District Collector
During the hearing, the assistant government pleader for revenue informed the court that the counter could not be filed as the relevant documents had been seized by the Enforcement Directorate, and that efforts were being made to retrieve them.
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Friday expressed serious displeasure over the inaction of Rangareddy district collector C. Narayan Reddy in complying with its directions seeking submission of a report on land in the prohibited list at Nagaram of Maheshwaram mandal, which is adjacent to Bhoodan land and reportedly purchased by IAS and IPS officers and their family members.
Earlier, the court had directed collector Narayan Reddy to inspect the land in Survey No.s 194 and 195 and submit the report on whether or not constructions were coming up, or change of ownership was taking place. The court orders followed contempt petitions filed which complained that despite the court orders restraining transactions on the land and no alteration or change of the land in Survey No.s 194 and 195, construction of compound wall and others was going on. However, the district collector did not file the report so far.
Justice E.V. Venugopal of the High Court observed that the officer’s conduct reflected poorly on the administration. “What is stopping you? Even after a gap of over three months, you could not file the report. This shows the conduct of the public officer.”
During the hearing, the assistant government pleader for revenue informed the court that the counter could not be filed as the relevant documents had been seized by the Enforcement Directorate, and that efforts were being made to retrieve them. However, the petitioner, Birla Mallesh, through his counsel, submitted that no inspection had been conducted at the disputed site despite the passage of several months.
Taking serious note of the inaction, Justice Venugopal questioned the officials’ reluctance to inspect the site and directed the collector to file a comprehensive report within a week, including an explanation for the delay of over three months. The court also directed the builder accused of undertaking illegal constructions to file a counter within the same period.
