Ranchi: In a dramatic courtroom scene that has gone viral, a Jharkhand High Court judge sternly reprimanded an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, warning of possible inquiry and FIR for alleged irregularities in a land acquisition and compensation matter.
The incident occurred during a hearing on a petition related to compensation for acquired land, where the IAS officer, Feroz Kumar, serving as a project director, objected to the amount awarded to the petitioner.
Judge questions officer’s authority
The judge strongly questioned Kumar’s authority to challenge the compensation fixed by the state. “Who are you to object? Under which law are you objecting?” the judge asked during the proceedings.
The court further stated that if the state had recognised a person as a ryot (landholder), the officer had no legal standing to dispute it.
Strong words and allegations of corruption
The exchange intensified when the judge alleged that the officer might be raising objections for personal gain. “Commission chahiye aapko? You want commission in each and every case? Under what authority have you objected? The award has been prepared. You are depriving the person of getting the award,” the judge remarked.
At one point, the judge went on to say, “Kitna asset jama kar liye. Inquiry karwayein? (How many assets have you collected? Should I order an inquiry?)” He also warned the officer that a contempt proceeding or FIR could be initiated if such conduct continued.
Social media reaction
The video of the courtroom reprimand quickly spread across social media platforms, with many users praising the judge for holding the officer accountable. The sharp remarks, including the comparison of the officer to a monkey interfering in disputes for a share, drew significant public attention.
Broader concerns over land cases
The incident highlights ongoing tensions in land acquisition cases across India, where compensation disputes frequently lead to allegations of corruption, bureaucratic overreach, and delays in disbursing awards to rightful claimants.
Conclusion
The High Court is expected to monitor the case further, and an inquiry may follow depending on the findings regarding the officer’s objections. The viral exchange has reignited public debate over transparency and accountability in administrative decision-making.