Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Jasram (2025:Rj-Jd:4958-Db) on 27 January, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:4958-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1190/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Engineer, Water
Resources, Hanumangarh.
2. Superintending Engineer, Suratgarh Water Resources
Circle, Hanumangarh.
3. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Suratgarh,
District Hanumangarh.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Jasram S/o Shri Bhadar Ram, Aged About 48 Years, By
Caste Kumhar, Resident Of Sneopura, Chak 3-4 Ksr, Tehsil
And District Hanumangarh.
2. Shri Krishna Gopal S/o Shri Bhadar Ram,, Aged About 55
Years, By Caste Kumhar, Resident Of Sneopura, Chak 3-4
Ksr, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.
3. Shri Bhura Ram S/o Shri Bhadar Ram,, Aged About 50
Years, By Caste Kumhar, Resident Of Sneopura, Chak 3-4
Ksr, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.
4. Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri Bhadar Ram,, Aged About 42
Years, By Caste Kumhar, Resident Of Sneopura, Chak 3-4
Ksr, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.
5. Shri Mohal Lal S/o Shri Bhadar Ram,, Aged About 40
Years, By Caste Kumhar, Resident Of Sneopura, Chak 3-4
Ksr, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.
6. Shri Ram Kumar S/o Shri Bhadar Ram,, Aged About 38
Years, By Caste Kumhar, Resident Of Sneopura, Chak 3-4
Ksr, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.
7. Shri Kheta Ram S/o Shri Bhagirath,, Aged About 38 Years,
By Caste Kumhar, Resident Of Sneopura, Chak 3-4 Ksr,
Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.
8. Shri Bhadar Ram S/o Shri Jandu,, Aged About 75 Years, By
Caste Kumhar, Resident Of Sneopura, Chak 3-4 Ksr, Tehsil
And District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 28/01/2025 at 10:57:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4958-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-1190/2019]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG
assisted by Mr. Rajdeep Singh
Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
27/01/2025
1. The present appeal has been filed alongwith an application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay
of 266 days.
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. Learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner) 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 266 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:4958-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-1190/2019]
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 order dated 23.08.2018, passed by learned Single
Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents-
petitioners was allowed in terms of the judgment dated
13.04.2012 passed in Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.3967/2008.
9. Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that 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.), which 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
[2025:RJ-JD:4958-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-1190/2019]
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."
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. He added 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 by Hon'ble the Supreme Court
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 as stated in preceding para.
12. The appeal stands dismissed.
[2025:RJ-JD:4958-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-1190/2019]
13. All interlocutory application(s) and stay applications are
disposed of, accordingly.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
11-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
