Rajasthan High Court
SAW/798/2026 of MESSRS. DHARAMCHAND KUMAWAT Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 12 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 798/2026 CNR: RJHC020674552026 | URN: SAW / 1642U / 2026 Messrs. Dharamchand Kumawat, Through Proprietor Dharamchand S/o Badrilal, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village Ramthala, Tehsil Dewali, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 798/2026
CNR: RJHC020674552026 | URN: SAW / 1642U / 2026
Messrs. Dharamchand Kumawat, Through Proprietor Dharamchand S/o Badrilal, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village Ramthala, Tehsil Dewali, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1.
State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Cum District Revenue Officer, Tonk, Rajasthan
2.
The Sub-Divisional Officer And Magistrate Dewali, Tonk.
3.
Executive Engineer, Cad Bisalpur Block Third, Tonk, Rajasthan.
4.
Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Cannel Block First, Bisalpur Project, Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s)
:
Mr. Virendra Prajapat
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
12/08/2026 This is an appeal assailing the order dated 03.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner challenging orders of recovery issued under the Public Debt Recovery Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the PDR Act’) by the District Collector were rejected.
2. The case is that the writ petitioner-appellant had been assigned a work order for construction of canal in year 2009 which he did not complete and therefore, his contract was terminated and damages were imposed upon him way back in the year 2010. Recovery letters
(2 of 3) [SAW-798/2026] were thereafter issued on 08.01.2015. The writ petitioner did not challenge either the order of termination of his contract nor the recovery proceedings and penalties imposed upon him. The petitioner also did not take up the matter before the Standing Committee for settlement of dispute nor did he take the matter to Arbitration. The proceedings having been concluded, the State referred the case for recovery of the amount under the PDR Act to the District Collector to issue notices to the petitioner-appellant on 25.09.2019 and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellant, the District Collector passed the order on 01.08.2024, directing to make recovery as arrears of land revenues. A review petition was filed which too was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 18.05.2026. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition wherein the petitioner assailed the two orders of the District Collector on the ground that the petitioner had failed to point out any perversity.
3. We notice that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he had accepted the penalties imposed upon him and termination of contract as he has not performed as per the conditions of the contract and therefore, the PDR proceedings initiated against him would have to be treated to be in accordance with law. During the proceedings, the District Collector admittedly has given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter has issued the Public Demand Certificate. No illegality therefore, can be said to have been committed at any level by him. The petitioner admittedly has knowledge of the recoveries being required to be made against him which he never assailed however, learned counsel submits that the proceedings should have been taken up before the Standing Committee for settlement of dispute as per the Clause 23 of the Agreement.
(3 of 3) [SAW-798/2026] However, we find that it was for the petitioner to have taken up the said proceedings which he had willfully not done even for almost 16 years.
4. This Court would refrain from allowing the petitioner to challenge the orders passed in the years 2010 and 2015.
5. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. (CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ 6/TWINKLE SINGH