THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO.820 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed Writ Petition being W.P.No.4736 of 2010 seeking a direction to the respondents to dispose of his application dated 31.07.2008 and conduct survey and demarcation. By an order dated 04.03.2010, the Writ Petition was disposed of with the following observation. In this case, the petitioner alleges that though the application is not considered, on perusal of the affidavit, no where it is found that the petitioner submitted an application pursuant to the order of this Court. Be that as it is, when the order was passed by this Court on 04.03.2010 giving liberty to file application for survey immediately, the Contempt Case was filed on 29.04.2011. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, I am convinced that the Contempt Case is barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This Court finds force in the submission. The provision was interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian[1], wherein it was held as under. Action for contempt is divisible into two categories, namely, that initiated suo motu by the Court and that instituted otherwise than on the Court's own motion. The mode of initiation in each case would necessarily be different. While in the case of suo motu proceedings, it is the Court itself which must initiate by issuing a notice. In other cases initiation can only be by a party filing an application. In our opinion, therefore, the proper construction to be placed on Section 20 must be that action must be initiated, either by filing of an application or by the Court issuing notice suo motu, within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Following the same, the Contempt Case is dismissed as barred by limitation. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 24th November 2011 RRB [1] (2001) 7 SCC 549 = AIR 2001 SC 2763