Hyderabad: The Telangana high court recently directed the Hyderabad district collector to compensate the sons of a deceased petitioner who was illegally deprived of his retainable land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (ULC Act), 1976, in a fourteen-year-old contempt case.The contempt case was filed by the deceased petitioner in 2011, alleging that the district collector did not follow the orders of the Telangana high court issued in 2009 in connection with his 1,000 square metres (around 1,200 square yards) of land at Shaikpet in the city.Although the district collector submitted to the court that the high court’s orders could not be implemented as there was no land available to compensate the legal heirs of the petitioner, the high court directed the collector to invoke land acquisition proceedings for the grant of compensation under the Act within six months.“Taking note of the injustice caused to the petitioner and the failure of the authorities to comply with earlier court directions, the court has powers under the Contempt of Court Rules to issue suitable and justified orders. Such action is also necessary to uphold the dignity and authority of the judiciary,” Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy wrote while delivering the verdict.The power to punish for contempt is crucial for protecting the authority and effectiveness of the judiciary, and this power ensures that court orders are respected, the rule of law is upheld, and any actions that obstruct justice or erode public trust in the legal system are dealt with firmly, the judge added.Initially, orders to take possession of the petitioner’s land in compliance with the Urban Land Ceiling Act were issued in February 1997, and a month later, the land was handed over to revenue authorities in March 1997. Subsequently, the petitioner moved a petition before the high court in 2000, and the court in 2009 ruled in his favour. Alleging non-compliance with the high court order, the petitioner filed a contempt case against the district collector in August 2010, but it was rejected by the registry due to some objections.The petitioner resubmitted the contempt case in February 2011, and it was admitted by the high court in March 2012. The district collector claimed that there was a delay in filing a contempt case and appealed to dismiss the case. However, the high court, citing various judgments in similar matters from the Supreme Court and the Telangana high court, rejected the claims and directed them to comply with the 2009 orders.
