Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Daya Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 March, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:12617]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 85/2025
1. Daya Ram S/o Prem Raj, Aged About 54 Years, Kikrali
Tehsil Nohar Distt. Hanumangarh.
2. Amar Singh S/o Prem Raj, Aged About 67 Years, Kikrali
Tehsil Nohar Distt. Hanumangarh.
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Distt. Collector,
Hanumangarh.
2. Superintendent Engineer, Irrigated Area Development,
Ignp, Hanumangarh.
3. Executive Engineer, Gangnahar Ofd Division 6, Irrigated
Area Development Suratgarh.
4. Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Division Nohar,
Sinchai Colony, Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh.
5. Har Lal S/o Rugha Ram, Resident Of Raikawali Dhani,
Tehsil Rawatsar District Hanumangarh (Since Deceased)
6. Rameshwar S/o Puran Ram, R/o Kikrali Tehsil Nohar Distt.
Hanumangarh.
7. Chandra Singh S/o Gada Ram, Resident Of Raikawali
Dhani, Tehsil Rawatsar District Hanumangarh
8. Ramu Ram S/o Khayali Ram, Resident Of Raikawali Dhani,
Tehsil Rawatsar District Hanumangarh
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramawatar Singh Choudhary
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
06/03/2025
1. The present second appeal has been filed aggrieved of the
judgment and decree dated 02.01.2025 passed by Additional
District Judge No.2, Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh in Civil Appeal CIS
[2025:RJ-JD:12617] (2 of 3) [CSA-85/2025]
No.6/2019 whereby the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2019
passed by Civil Judge, Nohar Dist. Hanumangarh in Civil Original
Suit No.60/2012 (CIS No.753/2014) has been affirmed.
2. Vide judgment and decree dated 12.02.2019, the learned
Trial Court proceeded on to dismiss the suit for permanent
injunction as filed on behalf of the plaintiffs holding the same to
be not maintainable, as an alternative remedy under the
Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred
to as 'Act of 1954') and Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules,
1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1995') was available to
the plaintiffs. Thus, keeping into consideration the provision of
Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the learned Trial
Court held the suit to be not maintainable.
3. The First Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated
02.01.2025, although reversed the finding on issue No.1 and
decided the same in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants but then
affirmed the finding on issue No.3 i.e. the maintainability of the
suit. Therefore, the first appeal was also dismissed holding the
suit to be not maintainable.
4. At the very inception, learned counsel for the appellant, on
instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present second
appeal with liberty to approach the competent authority in terms
of the Act of 1954 and Rules of 1955. However, he prays that the
time taken by him in pursuing the litigation before the Civil Court
be exempted for the purposes of limitation.
5. In view of the submission made, the permission as prayed
for is granted and the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to the appellants to approach the competent authority in
[2025:RJ-JD:12617] (3 of 3) [CSA-85/2025]
terms of the Act of 1954 and Rules of 1955. The appellant shall be
entitled to the benefit in terms of Article 14 of the Limitation Act.
6. It is however made clear that any of the finding as recorded
by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court shall not
come in way of the competent authority while deciding the matter.
The competent authority shall be under an obligation to decide the
same on its own merit while considering all the documents as
placed on record by the parties.
7. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
7-AbhishekK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
