Rajasthan HC Orders Tehsildar to Pay ₹2 Lakh from Own Pocket for 53-Day Illegal Detention Despite Suspension Order
A Rajasthan vacation bench held Tehsildar Tejpal Pareek personally liable for keeping an HIV-positive man confined for 53 days after his civil imprisonment sentence was suspended, directing personal compensation and a time-bound departmental inquiry.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, comprising Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sunil Beniwal sitting as Vacation Judges, on 12 June 2026 directed Tehsildar Tejpal Pareek of Deh, District Nagaur, to pay ₹2,00,000 in compensation personally — not from State funds — to Shri Ghamandnath, who was kept in civil imprisonment for approximately 53 days after the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, had suspended his sentence on 15 April 2026. The bench declared the continued detention after 1 June 2026 unconstitutional on the Tehsildar's own admission that he had acquired knowledge of the suspension order on that date, yet took no steps to release the detenue until this Court intervened on 8 June 2026. The petition was filed by Ghamandnath's wife, Smt. Bhanwari Devi, herself a cancer patient, after the Tehsildar refused to act on the appellate order despite her personally presenting a certified copy at his office.
The Encroachment Proceedings and Civil Imprisonment Under Section 91
The matter arose from proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 concerning alleged encroachment on Government land bearing Khasra No. 28/208, measuring 0.1660 hectare, recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta in Village Nayagaon, Tehsil Deh, District Nagaur. Reports by the Patwari and Land Records Inspector alleged that Ghamandnath had unauthorisedly cultivated the land and obstructed a public pathway.
The Naib Tehsildar, Deh, by order dated 5 March 2026, found Ghamandnath guilty of encroachment and, exercising powers under Section 91(3) of the Act, sentenced him to three months' civil imprisonment along with a monetary penalty and directions to remove the encroachment. An appeal to the District Collector, Nagaur, was dismissed on 9 April 2026.
Ghamandnath then preferred a further appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, registered as Appeal/LR-75/No.103/2026. During its pendency, he filed an affidavit dated 15 April 2026 relinquishing possession of the disputed land. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, taking note of this, suspended the sentence of civil imprisonment by order dated 15 April 2026, until the next date of hearing fixed as 12 June 2026.
Despite this suspension order, Ghamandnath was not released. According to the petitioner, she personally appeared before Tehsildar Tejpal Pareek with a certified copy of the suspension order, but he refused to take it on record and declined to release her husband. Left with no other remedy, Smt. Bhanwari Devi filed the present habeas corpus petition on 14 May 2026.
The Court's Intervention on 8 June 2026
A coordinate bench of this Court had issued notice to the respondents on 15 May 2026 in the presence of the learned Public Prosecutor. The Additional Advocate General informed the Court that the Superintendent of Police had thereafter been apprised of the proceedings and had forwarded the information to the District Collector and concerned authorities.
When the matter came up on 8 June 2026, Ghamandnath was still in custody. The Tehsildar appeared in person and urged that he was unaware of the suspension order. The bench found this explanation difficult to accept. It observed that no person in custody would fail to present a release order to the executing authority, and that the petitioner's assertion that she had personally served the certified copy “does not seem untrue.” The Court directed that Ghamandnath be released before 5:00 PM that day, and he was released on the evening of 8 June 2026.
After his release, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit disclosing that Ghamandnath is HIV-positive and requires continuous medical treatment, and that his 53-day illegal confinement had caused serious prejudice to his health. The affidavit also sought compensation and an independent inquiry to fix accountability.
The Tehsildar's Admitted Knowledge and the Seven-Day Window
At the hearing on 10 June 2026, the Tehsildar admitted in his affidavit that he had acquired knowledge of the suspension order on 1 June 2026. The bench treated this admission as decisive. Even on the most charitable reading of his own case, the detenue ought to have been released immediately upon that date. Instead, from 1 June 2026 to 8 June 2026 — a period of seven days — the Tehsildar took no steps to release Ghamandnath despite having actual knowledge of the suspension order and despite there being no other proceeding, criminal, civil, or revenue, that could have justified continued custody.
The bench found that the detention after 1 June 2026 was “a conscious, deliberate, and wilful deprivation of personal liberty in defiance of the order of a superior authority.” It held that the transition from lawful custody to unlawful confinement had occurred the moment the suspension order ought reasonably to have been acted upon but was not. The initial detention under the Naib Tehsildar's order was lawful; the illegality arose once the appellate order suspended the sentence.
The bench also drew on the principle omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta — that official acts are presumed to have been performed regularly — to hold that an appellate order suspending a subordinate officer's sentence would ordinarily be communicated through official channels to the very office charged with executing that sentence. The existence of institutional representation before revenue appellate forums further supported the inference that knowledge was available within the official framework well before 1 June 2026.
Constitutional Framework and the Principle of Obedience to Superior Orders
The bench situated the case within the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21, read with Article 14. It referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Daudayal v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 599, decided on 29 May 2026, which held that “the deprivation of liberty by the State without lawful authority or in violation of provisions of the Constitution is illegal detention” and that once a detenue has been ordered to be released, the order must be followed unless stayed by a superior court.
The bench applied the principle from Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689, that a direction issued by a competent court must be obeyed without reservation, and from Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 7 SCC 261, that flouting a court order exposes the party to contempt. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, is the hierarchical superior of the Tehsildar. His order of 15 April 2026 was valid, subsisting, and unambiguous. No superior court had stayed it. The Tehsildar's failure to act upon it was, in the bench's assessment, a dereliction of duty of the gravest kind.
The bench also invoked Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides an enforceable right to compensation for victims of unlawful detention, noting that the Supreme Court had taken cognizance of this provision in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746.
Compensation: Personal Liability of the Tehsildar
The bench held that compensation for violation of fundamental rights through writ jurisdiction is a constitutional mandate, not an act of charity. Citing the progression from Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141, through Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, (1985) 4 SCC 677, and Nilabati Behera, to the recent Daudayal judgment — where the Supreme Court awarded ₹11,00,000 for 24 days of illegal detention — the bench identified four factors bearing on quantum: the 53-day duration of illegal detention; the detenue's HIV status and deprivation of medical care; the petitioner's own cancer condition and the consequent familial suffering; and the wilful, deliberate character of the Tehsildar's conduct.
The bench determined compensation of ₹2,00,000 and directed that it be paid personally by Tehsildar Tejpal Pareek from his own income or property within 45 days. The order is explicit: the State of Rajasthan and no Government department shall bear, reimburse, or facilitate this payment. The Revenue Department is specifically directed not to deposit any amount on the Tehsildar's behalf. The amount is to be deposited directly into Ghamandnath's bank account, details of which the petitioner's counsel must furnish to the Tehsildar within seven days. Proof of compliance, including documentary evidence of the deposit, must be placed before the Court.
The bench reasoned that if the entire financial burden of public law compensation were always absorbed by the State — and thus by the taxpayer — while the officer whose wilful misconduct caused the violation faced no personal consequence, the purpose of the remedy would be subverted.
Departmental Inquiry and Removal from Field Posting
The bench directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, to forthwith initiate a detailed, time-bound departmental inquiry against Tehsildar Tejpal Pareek. The inquiry is to be conducted by a responsible senior officer deputed for the purpose and must examine: whether and when official intimation of the Additional Divisional Commissioner's order of 15 April 2026 was received by the Tehsil office; whether the petitioner personally presented a certified copy of the suspension order to the Tehsildar or his office; whether the Tehsildar had constructive or actual knowledge of the order before 1 June 2026; and whether his failure to release the detenue after admittedly acquiring knowledge on 1 June 2026 constitutes wilful disobedience of a superior order, misconduct, and violation of service rules. The inquiry must be completed within 90 days and a compliance report placed before the Court.
Pending the inquiry, the bench directed that Tejpal Pareek be forthwith relieved of his field posting as Tehsildar, Deh, District Nagaur. He is prohibited from entering the Tehsil office premises and from touching, handling, or interfering with any document, register, record, file, correspondence, or proceeding in the Tehsil office, Deh, or any office within District Nagaur. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, is directed to take him on attachment at the Revenue Headquarter in terms suitable to the ACS Revenue, pending the inquiry. He is not to be assigned any field or quasi-judicial role involving authority over any individual during this period.
The bench explained that a Tehsildar exercises administrative and supervisory control over the Tehsil establishment and its records. Permitting him to remain in the same establishment would carry a real risk of influence over subordinate staff and official records connected with the proposed inquiry.
Order
The bench declared that the continued detention of Shri Ghamandnath after 1 June 2026 was illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As regards the period between 15 April 2026 and 1 June 2026, the precise commencement and extent of the illegal detention is to be determined by the departmental inquiry; if the inquiry establishes earlier actual or constructive knowledge, the period of illegal detention and the Tehsildar's liability shall stand correspondingly extended.
Tehsildar Tejpal Pareek is directed to pay ₹2,00,000 personally to Shri Ghamandnath within 45 days. He is forthwith relieved of his field posting and barred from the Tehsil office, Deh. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue, is to initiate the departmental inquiry immediately and report compliance within 90 days. The petition stands disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of.