Sanjay Kumar, J.

1. Contempt Case No.1231 of 2016 was filed by Tammisetti Venu Gopal, the appellant in W.A.No.1043 of 2014, alleging willful disobedience to the judgment dated 25.07.2014 passed therein. By the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court comprising the then Hon’ble The Chief Justice and one of us, SK,J, noted that the learned single Judge had not decided anything while disposing of W.P.No.23318 of 2003, vide order dated 11.04.2014, as he had only remanded the matter to the Tahsildar, Hanamkonda, for taking a decision afresh, and directed the said authority to also decide the question of the locus of Pindi Rama Krishna Reddy, the first respondent in the writ appeal/the writ petitioner. Leaving all points open, the Division Bench further directed the authority to decide the matter within three months from the date of communication of the judgment.

2. Historical narrative, pertinent to note, is that Tammisetti Venu Gopal had secured pattadar passbooks from the Tahsildar, Hanamkonda, in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.118/D of Enumamula Village. Aggrieved thereby, Pindi Rama Krishna Reddy appealed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal, who allowed the appeal. In revision by Tammisetti Venu Gopal, the Joint Collector, Waqqrangal, reversed the said appellate order. This order was subjected to challenge in W.P.No.23318 of 2003 before this Court. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Judge of this Court on the ground that Pindi Rama Krishna Reddy was not put on notice by the Tahsildar, Hanamkonda, while accepting the plea of Tammisetti Venu Gopal for issuance of pattadar passbooks and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. It is in this milieu that the writ appeal filed by Tammisetti Venu Gopal was disposed of directing the Tahsildar, Hanamkonda, to also decide the locus of Pindi Rama Krishna Reddy.

3. According to Tammisetti Venu Gopal, though the Division Bench directed the Tahsildar to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment and the said judgment was dispatched on 05.08.2014 and received by the authority, no steps were taken immediately. He made a representation to the Tahsildar, Hanamkonda, as well as the Joint Collector, Warangal, seeking implementation of the judgment and on 25.07.2014, the Joint Collector, Warangal, directed the Tahsildar, Hanamkonda, to strictly comply with the judgment in the writ appeal. Thereupon, by Memo dated 18.02.2015, the Tahsildar, Hanamkonda, directed the Additional Revenue Inspector and the Village Revenue Officer, Hanamkonda, to visit the spot and submit a status report. The Additional Revenue Inspector and the Village Revenue Officer then visited the spot. Revenue summons dated 20.03.2015 was issued by the Tahsildar, Hanamkonda, calling upon Tammisetti Venu Gopal and Pindi Rama Krishna Reddy to appear in person on 24.03.2015 with original documents. Tammisetti Venu Gopal made a representation on 23.03.2015 to the Tahsildar, Hanamkonda, requesting him to pass appropriate orders but there was no progress. He asserted that despite repeatedly approaching the Tahsildar and requesting him to implement the judgment, no action was taken. At that point of time, the then Tahsildar, Hanamkonda, the first respondent in C.C.No.1231 of 2016, was transferred and a new incumbent, the second respondent in C.C.No.1231 of 2016, took charge. The successor Tahsildar issued a notice on 22.07.2015 to Tammisetti Venu Gopal calling upon him to appear before him on 01.08.2015. Tammisetti Venu Gopal claims that he did so and submitted reply dated 01.08.2015. His complaint in C.C.No.1231 of 2016 was that despite the same, no orders were passed by the new incumbent, who was dragging on the matter one way or the other. C.C.No.1231 of 2016 was filed in January, 2016. The Registry raised an objection as to the maintainability of this contempt case on the ground of limitation. However, by order dated 05.07.2016, this Cour