Whether a Tahsildar is justified in refusing to implement a writ court's direction to issue a digitally signed Form 1(B) on the ground that a third-party writ appeal is pending (without any stay) or that a civil suit involving family members is active. Ruling: Mere pendency of a third-party writ appeal (sans interim stay) or a civil suit does not empower revenue authorities to bypass or defy binding judicial mandates. Re-agitating reasons already rejected by the writ court constitutes willful and deliberate defiance of court orders.

advocatemmmohan

Dindi Chandra Rao vs. Chinta Bangar Raju, Tahsildar (and Ors.)

Contempt Case No. 1516 of 2024

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction)

Bench: Ninala Jayasurya, J.

Reserved on: 09.07.2026 | Pronounced on: 11.09.2026 | Uploaded on: 15.09.2026

Head Notes & Key Issues Considered

1. Non-Compliance of Court Directions & Ex-Parte Rejections:
   
   
   • Whether a Tahsildar is justified in refusing to implement a writ court's direction to issue a digitally signed Form 1(B) on the ground that a third-party writ appeal is pending (without any stay) or that a civil suit involving family members is active.
     
     
   • Ruling: Mere pendency of a third-party writ appeal (sans interim stay) or a civil suit does not empower revenue authorities to bypass or defy binding judicial mandates. Re-agitating reasons already rejected by the writ court constitutes willful and deliberate defiance of court orders.
     
     
2. Liability of Revenue Officials in Contempt:
   
   
   • Whether issuing a subsequent rejection endorsement (e.g., Endorsement dated 09.07.2025) bypassing prior directions amounts to contempt.
     
     
   • Ruling: Successor Tahsildars cannot take shelter behind old, discarded pretexts to frustrate compliance. Such action amounts to overreaching the court's authority and warrants strict penal consequences under the Contempt of Courts Act.
     
     
3. Punishment and Costs:
   
   
   • Consideration of leniency versus deterrence. While willful disobedience normally invites imprisonment, a lenient approach may be adopted based on age and gender, combined with monetary fines and compensatory costs payable to the litigant.
     
     

Analysis of Facts and Law

1. Factual Matrix

• The Origin: The petitioner (Dindi Chandra Rao) purchased land (including Ac.0-71 cents in Sy.No.18/8 of Ravivalasa Village) via a registered sale deed dated 04.11.2004.
  
  
• Writ Proceedings: When the Tahsildar rejected his request for a digital signature on Form 1(B) citing a pending civil suit, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5183 of 2023. On 18.10.2023, the High Court set aside the rejection, ruling that the mere pendency of a civil suit (without an injunction) is no ground to deny mutation/passbooks, and directed the Tahsildar to issue digitally signed Form 1(B).
  
  
• The Contempt Trigger: While implementation occurred for other parts, the extent of Ac.0-71 cents in Sy.No.18/8 was delayed. Successor Tahsildars were impleaded sequentially. Ultimately, the 4th respondent (Smt. M. Ramanamma, Tahsildar) issued a fresh Endorsement dated 09.07.2025 rejecting the request again—this time citing a pending writ appeal (W.A.No.594 of 2025) by a third party and family title disputes regarding the original vendor.
  
  

2. Legal Analysis by the High Court

• Lack of Stay: The Court observed that the 4th respondent was fully aware of the orders in W.P.No.5183 of 2023. Crucially, no stay or suspension of the writ order had been granted in W.A.No.594 of 2025.
  
  
• Nature of Revenue Entries: The Court reiterated that revenue entries do not confer title. The revenue authorities had no business sitting in judgment over the validity of registered sale deeds or invoking grounds already invalidated by the writ court.
  
  
• Wilful Defiance: Issuing a rejection endorsement under such circumstances amounts to a calculated attempt to overreach judicial orders.
  
  

Conclusion & Directions

• Verdict: The Contempt Case was allowed against respondent No.4 (Smt. M. Ramanamma).
  
  
• Penalty & Costs:
  
  
  1. Imposed a fine of ₹2,000/- payable to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P.
     
     
  2. Imposed costs of ₹10,000/- payable to the petitioner.
     
     
  3. Ordered that the amounts be paid within four weeks, failing which the contemnor shall undergo seven (7) days of Simple Imprisonment.