Hyderabad, April 30 The Telangana High Court on Wednesday asked a group of All India Service (AIS) officers to approach the single judge for vacating an interim order placing the land purchased by them in Nagaram village of Rangareddy district in the prohibited list under the Bhoodan land category.
Hearing a petition filed by some IAS and IPS officers, challenging the interim order of the single judge, a division bench declined to interfere with the interim order but suggested that the petitioners approach the single judge to seek vacation of the same.
The civil servants had purchased land in survey numbers 194 and 195 in Nagaram village of Maheshwaram mandal. Recently, a petition was filed in the High Court, alleging that some Bhoodan lands were purchased in the village.
Justice Bhaskar Reddy, in his interim order on April 24, declared these lands, belonging to 27 officials, as Bhoodan land and ordered their inclusion in the prohibitory list, preventing any further transactions.
Some of the officers challenged the single judge's order by filing an appeal before the division bench.
They referred to the list of Bhoodan lands submitted by the writ petitioner, which indicated the land in survey number 181. However, the said list makes no reference to survey numbers 194 or 195.
The division bench heard the writ appeal filed by the officers and, after considering the submissions of the parties, noted that lands in survey numbers 194 and 195 are not Bhoodan lands but patta lands. Accordingly, it directed the appellants to approach the single judge to seek vacation of the interim orders.
Counsel for the appellants submitted that lands in survey numbers 194 and 195 had been lawfully purchased by various senior IAS/IPS officers, and that certain individuals with vested interests were attempting to malign and discredit these officers and their families.
The counsel further requested the division bench to intervene and set aside the ex parte interim order passed by the single judge without notice to the reputed officers serving in the state government.
The division bench, after reviewing the records and facts, directed the appellants to file a petition to vacate the stay, without expressing any opinion on the findings of the single judge.
It observed that the single judge had not made a final decision on the main issue in the writ petition and had only issued an interim order. It clarified that the appellants are at liberty to file a petition to vacate or modify the interim order, and that the single judge shall consider such a petition on its merits without treating the interim order as a final judgment.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor