Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Laxmi Devi (2025:Rj-Jd:5159-Db) on 27 January, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:5159-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1431/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Water
Resources Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Executive Engineer, Suratgarh Branch Division Shri
Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
3. Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle,shri
Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Laxmi Devi W/o Lajpat Rai, Aged About 74 Years, R/o
Chak 50 Gb, Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
2. Devi Bai W/o Hot Chand, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Chak
50 Gb, Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
3. Naresh Kumar S/o Hot Chand, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Chak 50 Gb, Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG
assisted by Mr. Rajdeep Singh
Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NR Budania
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
27/01/2025
I. A. No.01/2019:-
1. The present application has been preferred under section 5
of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of inordinate delay of
449 days.
[2025:RJ-JD:5159-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-1431/2019]
2. Mr. Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant-State
submitted that the delay caused in preferring the present appeal is
bonafide. He added that disciplinary proceedings have been
initiated against the officials responsible for the delay and they
have been penalized as well.
3. He argued that since the order of learned Single Judge has
larger repercussions, the delay in filing appeal be condoned.
4. Mr. Budania, learned counsel for the respondent (writ
petitioners) opposed the application filed by the State under
section 5 of the Limitation Act and submitted that there is no
justifiable reason or explanation has been given for the inordinate
delay of 449 days and the State has got up from his slumber only
when similar cases were decided by the Division Bench(es) and
SLP(s) were filed thereagainst. He relied upon various judgments
and submitted that such inordinate delay should not be condoned
by the High Court.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering
that the State has taken action against the erring officials, this
Court feels that the inordinate delay deserves to be condoned in
the interest of justice.
6. The application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act is
therefore, allowed.
7. Heard on merit.
8. The present appeal has been preferred by the State
challenging the orders dated 26.02.2018, passed by learned
Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents-
petitioners was allowed in terms of the judgment dated
[2025:RJ-JD:5159-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-1431/2019]
13.04.2012 passed in Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.3967/2008.
9. It is to be noted that various writ petitions came to be
allowed in terms of the judgment under challenge and against one
such order, the State had preferred an intra-court appeal being
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.112/2017 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs.
Pratap Singh & Ors.), and the same was dismissed by the Division
Bench vide order dated 10.03.2017, while observing thus:-
"By way of this appeal, the appellants have
challenged the judgment and order of the learned
Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has
allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners
(respondents herein) relying upon the decision of this
Court in Krishan Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan [S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.3967/2008].
The learned Single Judge in para 9 of the impugned
order has observed as under:
"9. In the result, the writ petition is
allowed. The order impugned passed by
the respondent No.2, the Executive
Engineer, Sri Vijaynagar, is quashed. The
competent authority is directed to
consider the application of the petitioners
for supply of water to the land in question
afresh, treating it to be command land, in
accordance with the provisions of the
Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act,
1954 and the Rules made thereunder
expeditiously, preferably within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. No order as to
costs."
[2025:RJ-JD:5159-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-1431/2019]
In that view of the matter, we are of the considered
opinion that the observations made by the learned
Single Judge in the aforesaid paragraph is in
accordance with law. The appellants (respondents
herein) have to act in accordance with law. We find
no reason to interfere.
The appeal stands dismissed accordingly."
10. It is informed by Mr. Budania, learned counsel for the
respondent that the State has challenged the above referred order
dated 10.03.2017 before Hon'ble the Supreme Court by way of
filing Special Leave Petition (civil) [Diary No.9823/2019] and the
same too has been rejected, vide order dated 20.11.2024 on the
ground of delay so also on merit.
11. In view of the aforesaid, since the matter has attained
finality in the case of Pratap Singh (supra), this Court is of the
view that the present appeal is also liable to be dismissed in light
of the judgment dated 10.03.2017 passed by the Division Bench
of this Court, which has been affirmed by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court vide as stated in preceding para.
12. The appeal stands dismissed.
13. All interlocutory application(s) and stay application stand
disposed of, accordingly.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
16-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
