Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(per V. Ramasubramanaian, J) As against an order passed by the learned Judge in a Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (i) punishing the Tahsildar, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and (ii) also further directing him to effect mutation of the name of the 1st respondent herein in the revenue records, in terms of a final decree dated 26-12-2003 passed in Application No.1409 of 2003 in C.S.No.7 of 1958, the Tahsildar has come up with the above Contempt Appeal as well as Letters Patent Appeal, challenging in the contempt appeal, the punishment imposed upon him and challenging in the letters patent appeal, the further directions issued.

2. Heard Mr. Sharat Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Telangana and Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent herein. Case of the 1st respondent in his W.P.No.1729/2009

3. The 1st respondent herein filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1729 of 2009 on the file of this Court, seeking implementation of an order passed by this Court dated 09-10-2002, in Application No.1146 of 2002 in C.S.No.7 of 1958. The contentions with which he (the 1st respondent in these appeals) came up with W.P.No.1729 of 2009 were, that a civil suit for partition in C.S.No.7 of 1958 was filed by one Smt. Saheb Jadi Sultan Jahan Begum, the daughter of late Nawab Dowlat Bahadur, in respect of the matruka properties, allegedly including a land admeasuring Ac.209.00 guntas in Survey Nos.1 to 49 in Raidurg village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that a preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 06-04-1959; that the decree holders then executed a deed of assignment in favour of the 1st respondent herein and few others on 01-10-2002 in respect of the land of an extent of Acs.143.00 guntas, forming part of Survey Nos.1 to 37, 39 to 43 and 45 to 49; that the deed of assignment was recognized by this Court and the 1st respondent and others also paid a stamp duty to the tune of Rs.96,82,000/-; that by an order dated 09-10-2002, this Court recognized the said assignment deed, in Application Nos.1144 to 1147 of 2002 and also directed the Receiver-cum-Commissioner to put the parties in possession of the said land and accordingly, the Receiver-cum-Commissioner delivered the land to an extent of Ac.135.07 guntas in Survey Nos.1 to 7, 10 to 12, 15 to 19, 25 to 28, 30 to 32, 35 to 43 and 45 to 49 under a Panchanama dated 26-02- 2002; that there was also a direction to the Revenue Department to effect mutation in the revenue records; that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the Commissioner not only delivered possession of the land, but also filed a compliance report dated 13- 12-2002; that thereafter the 1st respondent herein filed an application in Application No.1409 of 2003, seeking a final decree to be passed in C.S.No.7 of 1958; that accordingly this court passed a final decree on 26-12-2003, in respect of land of an extent of Acs.84.30 guntas in Survey No.46 of Raidurg village in Application No.1409 of 2003; that the 1st respondent herein and others also deposited stamp duty of Rs.4,24,450/- for engrossing the final decree on the same; that by an order dated 09-10-2002, passed in Application No.1146 of 2002, this Court directed the revenue officials to effect mutation in the revenue records; that pursuant to the order passed in Application No.1146 of 2002, the 1st respondent made applications to the Joint Collector on 17-01-2004, 08-06-2006 and 01-05-2008; that the 1st respondent herein also made applications to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration on 25-05-2004, 13-11-2005 and 19-11-2008; that he also made an application on 01-09-2008 to the Tahsildar; that in spite of repeated applications, the Tahsildar did not effect mutation and did not implement the orders passed by this Court; that one Mr. M. Purnachandra Rao filed an appeal in OSA(SR)No.1900 of 2005, questioning the final decree, but the same was dismissed by a Division Bench by an order dated 26-04- 2005; that the said person filed a Special Leave Petition, in which leave was granted and it was converted into Civil Appeal No.1121 of 2008 on the file of the Supreme Court; that in the said Civil Appeal, the District Collector also sought to get impleaded before the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court dismissed the application for impleadment filed by the District Collector on 17-05-2007; that even then the District Collector filed a counter in the Civil Appeal, but the Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal by a judgment dated 11-02-2008; that thereafter there was no impediment for the revenue officials to effect mutation in the revenue records; and that even then they did not effect mutation, forcing the first respondent to come up with the writ petition.

A partial final decree was passed by this Court on 26.12.2003 in Application No.1409 of 2003 in O.S.No.7 of 1958, directing several steps. One of the steps is that the names of the decree holders be mutated in respect of the property mentioned in the decree. It appears that the persons, who have purchased part of the property from the parties to the decree, have also approached the respondents for mutation of their names. Having regard to the fact that there was a specific direction in the decree, requiring the authorities first to implement the decree by effecting mutation in only after the initial step is complied with.

24. Though the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 recognises a distinction between the civil contempt and criminal contempt, the essence of both, is to punish the contemnor. Therefore, the civil law concept of de die in diem cannot be applied to the failure of a contemnor to comply with an order requiring him to carry out a single act.

25. In the case on hand, the direction issued to the appellant in the previous proceedings, was to effect mutation in the Revenue records. What was expected of the appellant was to carry out a single act. His failure to carry out the single act of effecting mutation, cannot be said to be similar to a cause of action that arose de die in diem. It may be true that the effect of the failure of the appellant to carry out the single act, may have caused an injury, to be felt by the respondents for a long time, but that by itself would not make it a case of continuing wrong to enable this Court to come to the conclusion that the contempt was saved by limitation. Hence, we have no alternative except to take a position that the contempt petition was filed by the respondents, beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, since the starting point for the period of limitation, had to be reckoned with reference to Rule 21 of the High Court Rules. Accordingly, we hold that the contempt case was filed by the respondents beyond the period of limitation.