Ranga Reddy: The Telangana High Court has sentenced C. Narayana Reddy, the District Collector of Ranga Reddy district, to six months of simple imprisonment for willfully failing to comply with a court order. Additionally, the court has ordered him to pay a fine of Rs.2,000. This sentencing of an IAS officer in a contempt of court case has drawn significant attention.
However, the execution of the jail sentence has been stayed for four weeks to allow the District Collector the opportunity to file an appeal. During this period, he may challenge the verdict by filing an appeal. The court has directed that the fine be paid within four weeks.
What is the case about?
This case pertains to two plots of land located in the Manne Mutthyalamma Kunta area of Turkayamjal, Ranga Reddy district. A couple, P. Shivalila and her husband P. Venkateswarlu, had submitted a request to the District Collector seeking the removal of their plots from the list of prohibited properties.
The dispute concerns Plot No. 59 and the eastern portion of Plot No. 62, situated within the limits of Survey Numbers 536, 537, 657, and 658. The couple had submitted an application to the District Collector on March 14, 2024. However, as no appropriate action was taken regarding their request, they approached the High Court.
High Court directs a decision within 60 days:
On August 5, 2025, the Telangana High Court reviewed the couple’s request and directed the District Collector to reach a decision within 60 days. The Court further clarified that if the request were to be rejected, a detailed order—citing appropriate reasons—must be issued and communicated to the couple.
However, the District Collector failed to announce any decision within the stipulated timeframe. Following the filing of a contempt of court petition, the couple’s request was rejected on February 26, 2026. Subsequently, another order was issued on July 8. The High Court took a serious view of the fact that action was taken only after the receipt of a contempt of court notice.
In the same locality, certain adjacent plots had previously been removed from the list of prohibited properties. Yet, a different decision was reached specifically in the case of this couple’s plots.
Justice K. Lakshman observed that the District Collector had failed to provide valid reasons for this. The Court clarified that if the official believed the previous court order was incorrect, the proper course of action would have been to challenge it through an appeal; it could not simply be ignored or left uncomplied with. Against this backdrop, the District Collector’s conduct was deemed to be a deliberate act of contempt of court, and a penalty was imposed.
What is the ‘list of prohibited properties’:
Under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, certain properties are included in a list of prohibited properties. The registration of such properties is restricted. If a property appears on this list, complications may arise during its sale, purchase, or registration process.
In this case, a couple had requested the removal of their plots from this list to facilitate the registration process. However, the primary reason for the penalty imposed on the District Collector was the failure to comply with the directions issued by the High Court while addressing their request.