Telangana High Court Rejects Medchal-Malkajgiri Collector’s Exemption Plea

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has made it clear that a district collector cannot seek exemption from personal appearance before the court merely on the ground of official engagements, including election-related duties.

Rejecting an exemption petition filed by Medchal-Malkajgiri district collector Manu Choudary, Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy directed the Malkajgiri police commissioner to ensure the officer's appearance before the court on November 25.

The judge observed that the collector had a personal responsibility to explain the factual and legal position concerning disputed land in Bachupally.

The court was hearing a contempt petition filed by Arjuna Rao, a Hyderabad-based private employee, alleging deliberate non-compliance with judicial directions concerning land in Survey Nos. 15, 41, 83, 132, 133, 135, 136, 336, 337 and 511 at Bachupally village.

At an earlier hearing on October 27, the court had directed the district collector, revenue divisional officer (RDO) and other officials to appear personally and explain the legal basis for treating the disputed property as government land.

The court sought details of the provisions under which the land was allegedly acquired under the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the procedure followed and the extent of land currently in government possession.

When the matter came up on Wednesday, the collector filed an interlocutory application seeking exemption from personal appearance, citing election-related responsibilities, including duties as an election officer in connection with the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, besides other administrative commitments.

Rejecting the request, Justice Bhaskar Reddy observed that official engagements could not justify avoiding personal appearance when the court had specifically directed the officer to furnish factual and legal particulars.

The judge pointed out that the collector had already been granted exemptions on February 27 and April 2. Another exemption could not be entertained in view of the specific directions issued on October 27.

The contempt proceedings arose from alleged non-compliance with a High Court order dated July 8, 2025, concerning land claimed by the petitioner.

In subsequent proceedings, the High Court had directed the district collector, RDO and Bachupally tahsildar to protect the disputed property and ensure that no construction activity was undertaken.

The authorities were also directed to examine the petitioner's representations concerning the status of the land and its alleged merger with government land, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within eight weeks.

The court had further restrained the authorities from granting building permissions or construction approvals over the disputed property.

During the October 27 hearing, the assistant government counsel for revenue submitted that possession of the land had been taken under the provisions of the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The counsel contended that there was consequently no question of paying compensation or restoring possession.

Seeking to verify the government's claim, the court directed the collector and the RDO/Land Reforms Tribunal to appear personally on November 11.

The court sought an explanation of when the land ceiling proceedings were initiated and concluded, when possession was taken, the specific statutory provision invoked and the present status and extent of the land held by the authorities.