Hyderabad, April 30 (NationPress) - The Telangana High Court instructed a group of All India Service (AIS) officers on Wednesday to petition a single judge for the vacating of an interim order that classified the land they acquired in Nagaram village of Rangareddy district as prohibited under the Bhoodan land category.

During a hearing regarding a petition lodged by several IAS and IPS officers contesting the interim ruling from the single judge, a division bench chose not to intervene but recommended that the petitioners seek relief from the single judge.

The civil servants had obtained land in survey numbers 194 and 195 in Nagaram village within Maheshwaram mandal. Recently, a petition was submitted to the High Court, alleging that certain Bhoodan lands were bought in the village.

On April 24, Justice Bhaskar Reddy issued an interim order declaring these lands, owned by 27 officials, as Bhoodan land, thus including them in the prohibitory list and preventing further transactions.

Some of the officers contested the single judge's order by appealing to the division bench, referencing the list of Bhoodan lands provided by the writ petitioner, which mentioned survey number 181 but did not include survey numbers 194 or 195.

Upon reviewing the writ appeal from the officers, the division bench acknowledged that survey numbers 194 and 195 do not pertain to Bhoodan lands but are instead patta lands. Consequently, it directed the appellants to approach the single judge to seek the vacation of the interim orders.

The appellants' counsel argued that the lands in survey numbers 194 and 195 had been lawfully acquired by several senior IAS/IPS officers, asserting that individuals with vested interests were attempting to tarnish the reputation of these officers and their families.

The counsel further urged the division bench to intervene and annul the ex parte interim order issued by the single judge without notifying the esteemed officers serving in the state government.

After examining the records and facts, the division bench instructed the appellants to submit a petition to vacate the stay, without commenting on the single judge's findings.

The bench clarified that the single judge had not reached a final determination on the primary issue of the writ petition and had merely issued an interim order. It affirmed that the appellants are entitled to file a petition to vacate or amend the interim order, with the single judge obliged to consider such a petition on its merits, refraining from treating the interim order as a conclusive judgment.