Back
2004 Supreme(Raj) 234
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Sunil Kumar Garg
Rajendra - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No.4328 of 2003
Decided On : 03/13/2004
S.P. Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant
Chandra Lekha, Dy. G.A. for Respondents 1 to 3
Rakesh Arora, Advocate for Respondent 4
The court emphasized the importance of complying with the principles of natural justice and upheld the discretionary power of the Superintending Engineer in rejecting the appeal.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Irrigation Dispute - Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 - Article 226/227 - Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 - [Act of 1954, Rules of 1955] - The court discussed the violation of principles of natural justice by the Executive Engineer in passing the impugned order without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The court also considered the withdrawal of the compromise by respondent No. 4 and the discretionary power of the Superintending Engineer in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition against the dismissal of his appeal by the Superintending Engineer, which upheld the order allowing the construction of a new drain by respondent No. 4 on the petitioner's land. The petitioner argued that the orders were violative of natural justice and should be set aside.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioner's contentions, finding that the Executive Engineer had issued notices and obtained expert opinion before passing the impugned order. The court also noted that the compromise between the parties was withdrawn by respondent No. 4, and upheld the discretionary power of the Superintending Engineer in rejecting the appeal.
Issues: Violation of natural justice, withdrawal of compromise, exercise of discretionary power by the Superintending Engineer
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned orders were found to be in compliance with the principles of natural justice and the withdrawal of the compromise rendered it ineffective. The court upheld the discretionary power of the Superintending Engineer in rejecting the appeal.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned orders were upheld.
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India on 6-8-2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 7-7-2003 (Annex. 6) passed by respondent No. 2 (Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Hanumangarh Junction) by which the Superintending Engineer (respondent No. 2) dismissed the appeal (Annex. 3) filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 4 (Madan Lal) and upheld the order dated 3-1-2002 (Annex. 2) passed by the respondent No. 3 (executive Engineer, Irrigation Division-Il, Hanumangarh) by which respondent No. 3 (Executive Engineer) allowed the application filed by respondent No. 4 (Madan Lal) and sanctioned another Naka (drain) from the khasra No. 512/434 belonging to the petitioner for supplying water to his agricultural field situated in Khasra No. 513/434 be quashed and set aside.
2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:
(i) That the petitioner and respondent No. 4 (Madan Lal) both are neighbourers having adjacent agricultural fields to each other and doing farming on their field. The land bearing khasra No. 5 12/434 belongs to the petitioner and the land bearing khasra No. 513/ 434 belongs to the respondent No. 4 (Madan Lal).
(ii) Further case of the petitioner is that water to the field of respondent No. 4 (Madan Lal) is supplied from Pakka Drain (Naka) made in the outskirts of petitioner’s khasra No. 512/434 from north to south and respondent No. 4 (Madan Lal) wanted a new drain (Naka) cutting across through the field of the petitioner from midway from west to east for irrigating his field, whereas he was already getting sufficient water to his field from old Naka (drain).
(iii) Further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 filed an application before the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division II, Hanumangarh (respondent No. 3) praying for sanction and construction of new additional nake (drain) for supplying water to his agricultural field bearing khasraNo. 5 13/434.
(iv) Further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 3 (Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division-Il, Hanumangarh) did not issue notices to the petitioner and called technical report from the concerned Assistant Engineer, Irrigation and without complying with the provisions of Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954) through impugned order dated 3-1-2002 (Annex. 2) allowed the application filed by respondent No. 4 (Madan Lal) and sanctioned new Naka (drain) from the field of the petitioner bearing Khasra No. 512/434.
(v) Further case of the petitioner is that petitioner filed an appeal (Annex. 3) under Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1955) before the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, Hanumangarh Junction (respondent No. 12) against the impugned order dated 3-1-2002 (Annex. 2).
(vi) Further case of the petitioner is that before the appeal was decided, the respondent No. 4 (Madan Lal) entered into compromise dated 11-6-2003 (Annex. 5) and the said compromise (Annex. 5) was duly executed on stamp paper and attested by a notary advocate and in that compromise dated 11-6-2003 (Annex. 5), the respondent No. 4 (Madan Lal) withdraw his demand for additional Naka in Khasra No. 512/434. (vii) Further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 (Madan Lal) later on rejected the compromise (Annex. 5) and withdrew himself from the compromise (Annex. 5).
(viii) Further case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 (Superintending Engineer) without taking notice of the compromise (Annex. 5) through order dated 7-7-2003 (Annex. 6) rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the order dated 3-1-2002 (Annex. 2) passed by the respondent No. 3 (Executive Engineer).
(ix) After being aggrieved from the order dated 3-1-2002 (Annex. 2) p
