SARDOOL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(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 no.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.

(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.