Contempt Of Courts Act | Tahsildar Cannot Stall Mutation Proceedings Contrary To Judicial Orders Under Pretext Of Pending Litigation: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"The respondent-contemnor has made some derogatory remarks on the Court while the party went for implementation of the orders of this Court. This clearly shows that the officer is not intended to implement the orders of this Court." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a contempt proceeding decided on September 21, 2026, held that a revenue official cannot circumvent a judicial mandate by unilaterally citing pending litigation when such litigation does not pertain to the subject property.

A bench of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao observed that the persistent refusal of the Mandal Revenue Officer to implement clear directions regarding mutation, coupled with derogatory remarks made against the court, constituted willful disobedience warranting punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The petitioner had originally approached the High Court seeking the implementation of a Revenue Divisional Officer’s (RDO) order, which recognized the succession of agricultural land in R.S.No.228/1 and directed the issuance of new pattadar passbooks. Although the Writ Petition was disposed of with a mandate for compliance, the respondent-Tahsildar failed to act, prompting the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings. The matter reached a Division Bench in an intra-court appeal, which clarified that mutation proceedings should not be stalled unless it was demonstrated that related litigation specifically encompassed the survey number in question.

Court Examines Scope of Contempt Jurisdiction

The primary issue before the court was whether the Tahsildar’s failure to implement the RDO’s order, by creating fresh procedural hurdles and citing unrelated litigation, amounted to willful disobedience. Additionally, the court had to address the accountability of a public servant who made derogatory remarks regarding judicial processes while discharging statutory functions.

Court Holds Disobedience to be Willful

The court found that the Tahsildar’s defense—that the property was a "private zeroyithi property" locked in family litigation—was a calculated attempt to ignore the specific findings of the court. The bench noted that it had previously clarified that the pending suit in O.S.No.3 of 2023 related to a different survey number and had no bearing on the subject land in R.S.No.228/1.

"The respondent-contemnor has made some derogatory remarks on the Court while the party went for implementation of the orders of this Court. This clearly shows that the officer is not intended to implement the orders of this Court."

The bench emphasized that the respondent’s conduct, particularly the assertion that the High Court’s original order was passed "without counter" despite the submission of written instructions by the state, reflected a contumacious disregard for the judicial process. Consequently, the court found the respondent liable under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Modification of Sentence to Community Service

While the court initially sentenced the contemnor to one week of civil imprisonment, it entertained a request from the defense counsel for a more reformative approach. Exercising its discretion, the court modified the sentence, directing the respondent to perform seven days of community service at an orphanage starting from September 22, 2026, while maintaining the order for a fine of Rs. 2,000 to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Committee.

The court’s ruling serves as a stern reminder to administrative authorities that judicial directions under the A.P. Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, are not optional. By prioritizing judicial compliance over administrative obstructionism, the court reinforced the principle that revenue officials cannot act as final arbiters of law when their decisions directly contradict settled judicial orders.

Date of Decision: 21 September 2026