Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sushil Kumar And Anr vs Special Dis. Judge - 1 Sgnr., And ... on 16 March, 2023
Bench: Arun Bhansali, Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2023/RJJD/006557]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 544/2014
1. Sushil Kumar
2. Vikram Singh
both sons of Jagatram @ Jagtu, resident of Samket, Post
Office Joka-Ratayal, Tehsil Jvali, District Kangra, Himachal
Pradesh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Special District Judge - 1 (Pong Dam Oustees Cases),
Sriganganagar.
2. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Revenue (Colonization), Govt. of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The District Collector, Sriganganagar.
4. The Commissioner Rehabilitation, Bikaner (Raj.)
5. Deputy Commissioner Resettlement and Rehabilitation, Beas
Project, Raja Ka Talab, District Kangara (H.P.)
6. Rami Devi w/o Bhoopram Bishnoi, resident of Chak 7 B.G.D.,
Tehsil Vijaynagar, District Sriganganagar.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.S.Sandhu.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.K.Joshi.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order
16/03/2023
This appeal is directed against the order dated 21/1/2014
passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 383/2014,
whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellants-petitioners
against the order dated 13/8/1998 (Annex.9) passed by Special
District Judge - I (Pong Dam Oustees Cases), Sriganganagar and
order dated 9/5/1992 (Annex.6) passed by S.D.O., Raisinghnagar
[2023/RJJD/006557] (2 of 3) [SAW-544/2014]
has been rejected inter alia on coming to the conclusion that the
petition suffers from vice of inordinate delay and laches.
Learned counsel for the appellants with reference to the
judgment in Tuka Ram Kana Joshi & Ors. vs. Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. : (2013) 1 SCC 353
made submissions that the delay/laches is not an impediment to
exercise judicial discretion and rendering of substantial justice.
Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions on
merit of the orders passed by the Special District Judge - I and
S.D.O. (Annex.9 & 6, respectively).
After hearing the parties, the order in the matter was
reserved.
While dictating the order, the Court felt handicapped in
appreciating the submissions made by learned counsel for the
appellants with regard to the order passed by the Special District
Judge - I (Annex.9), in absence of the record of the case,
inasmuch as no material as was considered by the Special District
Judge - I has been placed on record, though the Special District
Judge - I had recorded evidence and certain documents were also
exhibited.
Besides the above, the Special District Judge - I in para 10
of his judgment had noticed, as part of the statement of AW-1,
Sushil Kumar, (appellant herein) that he and his mother had filed
a suit for eviction on 13/7/1990 in the court of Assistant Collector,
Anoopgarh. The outcome of the said litigation would also be
relevant for the purpose of appreciating the over all fact situation
as well as the circumstances of the case.
[2023/RJJD/006557] (3 of 3) [SAW-544/2014]
In that view of the matter, it is deemed appropriate and,
therefore, ordered that record of Review Case no. 12/98 decided
on 13/8/1998 by the court of Special District Judge - I (Pong Dam
Oustees Cases), Sriganganagar be requisitioned.
The requisition be given 'dasti' to the learned counsel for the
appellants.
Further it would be required of the appellants to place on
record the outcome of the litigation initiated by them before the
Court of Assistant Collector, Anoopgarh on 13/7/1990, reference
thereof has been given in para 10 of the judgment of Special
District Judge - I, as indicated hereinbefore.
The matter shall remain 'part heard' and be listed for further
hearing after four weeks.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J
baweja/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
