The Telangana High Court on Tuesday warned that warrants could be issued against officials who seek to avoid personal appearances in proceedings, after Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Lokesh Kumar sought exemption from appearing in a contempt case involving a delayed land-refund payment.
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy was hearing a contempt petition filed by M. Vijayasimha Reddy of Musarambagh, Hyderabad, and others over the non-refund of Rs.45,10,550 paid towards land conversion charges. The petitioners own 7.06½ acres at Korremula in Ghatkesar Mandal of Medchal-Malkajgiri district.
The petitioners had paid the amount through e-challans on July 11, 2023, after applying to convert the land for non-agricultural use. Their applications were later rejected by the District Collector, following which they sought the return of the conversion charges.
The High Court had previously directed the CCLA to examine the Collector’s communication and refund the amount within two months if the petitioners were found ineligible for conversion. After the direction was not implemented, the petitioners approached the court with a contempt petition.
During the hearing, the Government Pleader told the court that Lokesh Kumar could not appear because he was accompanying a Minister on tour and that an exemption petition had been filed. The court took strong exception to the explanation and said that appearing before the court could not be avoided on such grounds.
The court warned that any similar exemption plea filed by an official in the future would be rejected on the same day and that a warrant would be issued. It also directed Government Pleaders to properly advise officials and departments about the importance of court orders. The court further said senior officials should be informed immediately when orders requiring compliance are passed.
Lokesh Kumar subsequently appeared through video conference and informed the court that the refund had been transferred to the petitioners’ accounts on Tuesday morning. The court questioned why the money had been retained even for a day, observing that it belonged to the petitioners and not the government.
Officials explained that the payment had been delayed because of the release of funds by the Finance Department. After recording that the amount had ultimately been credited to the petitioners’ accounts, the High Court concluded the contempt proceedings.
