In Brief
This case concerns a dispute over land in Telangana arising from a 1953 civil suit. After a final decree was passed in 2003, a writ petition was filed in 2009 seeking mutation (recording) of the decree holder's name in revenue records. A Single Judge allowed the petition; the Tahsildar failed to comply. The decree holder filed a contempt petition in 2014, seeking punishment for non-compliance. The Supreme Court held that the contempt petition was barred by limitation (filed over 5 years after the original order when the Contempt Act prescribes a one-year limit) and that non-compliance was a single completed act, not a continuing wrong. The Court also found the High Court's review judgment—which reversed the original appellate decision—exceeded review jurisdiction by improperly relying on new evidence about land ownership, which did not address the limitation issue. The Division Bench (original)'s decision was restored.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.