
HC issues contempt notice to Guntur collector in land case
By Express News Service | Published: 10th January 2018 03:53 AM |
Last Updated: 10th January 2018 07:20 AM | A+A A- |

HYDERABAD: Taking a serious view of the non-implementation of an earlier order given by the court, justice M S Ramachandra Rao of the High Court has recently issued notice to Guntur district collector Kona Sridhar to explain as to why proceedings cannot be initiated against him for suo motu contempt of court.
The judge passed this order on a petition filed by Karlapudi Ramakrishna and three others from Guntur in Andhra Pradesh, seeking a direction to the authorities concerned to receive and register their land situated at Lam village in Tadikonda mandal in Guntur district.
In 2013 the court, while dealing with a batch of petitions, had categorically held that there was no prohibition on alienating the lands which had been assigned prior to 1954 and they ought to be registered under the Registration Act, 1908. In the present case, the court said that there was no dispute that the subject land had been assigned prior to 1954. In spite of the court’s order, the authorities again included the subject land of the petitioners and also others of various mandals in the district in the prohibition list. In this regard, the AP government issued GO No.197 in 2016. Aggrieved, the petitioners moved the High Court for relief.
The petitioners’ counsel submitted that the subject land did not come within the purview of Section 2 of Act 9 of 1977 nor of Section 22-A of the Registration Act. However, the district authorities included the petitioners’ land in the prohibited list without taking into consideration the court’s order issued in 2013, he pointed out.
Taking these submissions into consideration, justice Ramachandra Rao found fault with the action of the district collector and made it clear that such a stand prima facie amounted to contempt of court vis-a-vis the order passed in 2013. While granting stay on GO No.197, the judge issued contempt notice to the district collector to explain as to why action cannot be initiated against him for contempt of court.