Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1327 (RAJ)

Sardool Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-05-02

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, SANGEET LODHA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This special appeal is directed against order dated 4.4.18 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellants questioning the legality of order dated 20.10.14 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Sri Ganganagar, directing enforcement of order dated 27.11.95 and orders dated 27.11.95 and 21.3.96, disconnecting the water supply to the appellants fruit gardens comprising murabba No. 60, kila No. 19,20,21 and murabba No. 6, kila Nos. 2 and 3 in chak 2 PS, has been dismissed. 2. The appeal is reported to be barred by limitation for 23 days. The appellants have preferred an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay. The only reason assigned for delay in filing the appeal is that the appellants were not knowing about the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal and therefore, the appeal could not be filed within limitation. In our considered opinion, the explanation furnished by the appellants for condonation of delay is not plausible and acceptable and the appeal deserves to be dismissed as barred by limitation. However, in the interest of justice, we have examined the matter on merits as well. 3. The facts relevant are that the appellants were sanctioned water supply for their fruit gardens, which was disconnected as aforesaid inasmuch as, they failed to develop the fruit gardens as per the Scheme. The orders disconnecting the irrigation facility were not challenged by the appellants by availing appropriate remedy and the same attained finality. However, the appellants claimed that they represented to the Executive Engineer, Department of Irrigation, Sri Ganganagar for restoration of the water supply, stating that they have successfully developed the fruit gardens, who in its turn made recommendations that the water supply may be resumed to the fruit gardens in question. According to the appellants, the recommendations were reiterated in January, 1998. But then, it is not in dispute that no order restoring the water supply was ever issued by the competent authority. According to the assertions of the appellants, the water supply to their gardens was restored in the year 1998 and thereafter, water usage charges paid by them were regularly accepted by the respondents. Admittedly, no receipt/slip issued by the competent authority accepting the water usage charges from the appellants is placed on record. 4. According to the assertions of the appellants, the water supply to their gardens was restored in the year 1998 and thereafter, water usage charges paid by them were regularly accepted by the respondents. Admittedly, no receipt/slip issued by the competent authority accepting the water usage charges from the appellants is placed on record. 4. It is pertinent to note that the appellant Sardool Singh, who was elected as President of Water Users Association in the year 2010, abusing his position, managed restoration of the water supply to his fruit gardens illegally and also extended additional water supply to other fields without any lawful sanction. After due inquiry, the allegation against the appellant Sardool Singh being prima facie established, he was suspended from the post of President, Water Users Association. The legality of the suspension order was challenged by the appellant Sardool Singh before this court by way of Writ Petition No. 13310/13, which was dismissed vide order dated 7.7.14. However, the appellant Sardool Singh somehow managed to resume the post of President, Water Users Association in the year 2014. Aggrieved thereby, the agriculturists Raj Bhupendra Singh and others filed a Writ Petition No. 5795/14 before this court wherein, the order reinstating the appellant Sardool Singh on the post of President, Water Users Association was stayed by this court vide order dated 12.9.14. 5. Precisely, the case set out by the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that vide amended Barabandi recommendation (Annexure 6), water supply to the appellants fruit gardens was sanctioned for the period from December, 2013 to April, 2019 and therefore, the same could not have been discontinued by the respondents without extending an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. 6. After due consideration of the rival submissions as also the original record summoned from the respondents, the learned Single Judge arrived at the finding that the restoration of water supply to the appellants fruit gardens pursuant to the recommendations dated 24.8.96 (Annexure 4) and dated 28.1.98 (Annexure 5) is not supported by any order of the competent authority or the receipt of the water usage charges. The learned Single Judge found that no order restoring the water supply was ever passed nor the same is available on record. The learned Single Judge found that no order restoring the water supply was ever passed nor the same is available on record. The court arrived at the categorical finding that the assertion of the appellants regarding resumption of water supply to their fields in the year 1998 pursuant to recommendations dated 24.8.96 and 28.1.98 is absolutely false and fabricated. The court found that if at all any water supply was being drawn by the appellants during the said period, it was being done illegally. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case including the conduct of the appellant Sardool Singh, the learned Single Judge opined that the appellants are not entitled for any relief in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the water supply of the appellants fruit gardens was discontinued as they failed to develop the gardens properly as per the terms and conditions. However, later pursuant to the recommendations made by the Executive Engineer, the water supply was restored and the appellants were getting the water supply from the year 1998 till passing of the order impugned in the writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that in any case, as per the Barabandi (Annexure 6), the water supply to the appellants fruit gardens for the period from December, 2013 to April, 2019 was duly sanctioned and the same could not have been discontinued without giving them an opportunity of hearing and thus, the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in dismissing the appeal without considering this aspect of the matter in correct perspective. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material on record. 9. Indisputably, the water supply to the appellants fruit gardens was discontinued vide orders dated 27.11.95 and 21.3.96, legality whereof was never challenged by the appellants by availing the appropriate remedy available under the law and thus, the same attained finality. The appellants have heavily relied upon the recommendations made by the Executive Engineer in the year 1996 and 1998 for resumption of the water supply to the appellants fruit garden, but admittedly, there is no order passed by the competent authority available on record restoring the water supply of the appellants. The appellants have heavily relied upon the recommendations made by the Executive Engineer in the year 1996 and 1998 for resumption of the water supply to the appellants fruit garden, but admittedly, there is no order passed by the competent authority available on record restoring the water supply of the appellants. There is nothing on record suggesting that on the water supply being restored as alleged by the appellants, the water usage charges were recovered from the appellants by the respondents. It is pertinent to note that to satisfy the correctness of the stand taken by the appellants, original record was also requisitioned by the learned Single Judge wherein no such order was available. The inclusion of the appellants fruit gardens in the Barabandi for the period from December, 2013 to April, 2019 is also suspicious inasmuch as, the proposal of Barabandi placed on record is not supported by any order of the competent authority sanctioning the water supply to the appellants fruit gardens for the aforesaid period. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has not been able to show that the inclusion of the appellants fruit garden in Barabandi was preceded by any order passed by the competent authority sanctioning the water supply as claimed. 10. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge after due consideration of the rival submissions and the original record, do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality so as to warrant interference by us in intra court appeal jurisdiction. 11. In the result, the special appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed.