Hon'ble TATIA, J.—By two separate judgments dated 14.5.2009, two bunch of the writ petitions have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. One bunch of ten writ petitions was decided along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4690/2008-Bagh Singh & Anr. vs. State Raj. & Ors. and by the separate judgment of the same date second bunch of 17 writ petitions have been decided by the learned Single Judge along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4689/2008 Sahi Ram & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. The controversy cropped up because of one action of the respondents, by which the irrigation facility availed by the petitioner from irrigation work of the State Government was withdrawn/cancelled.

2. The one set of the petitioners are those petitioners who are claiming that they have sanction order in their favour of installation of siphons and for taking water for irrigation to their agricultural field. These are the petitioners whose writ petitions have been dismissed in bunch of ten writ petitions along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4690/2008-Bagh Singh and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

3. The second set of petitioners who are petitioners in the writ petitions decided by the judgment delivered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4689/2008-Sahi Ram & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. and other 16 connected matters. The petitioners of these writ petitions though stated that 49 siphons were sanctioned for the agricultural lands. "However, the petitioners is/are unable to locate his/their sanction order in the said list." Meaning thereby, without admitting, the petitioners of this bunch of these writ petitions admitted that they do not have any order of sanction sanctioning the siphons irrigation to their agricultural lands.

4. Because of the distinction referred above, it appears that the learned Single Judge has decided the writ petitions by separate judgments. However, all these Special Appeals challenging the judgments delivered in all above writ petitions have been argued with same arguments with little difference, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.

5. The contention of the writ petitioners in first set of the writ petitions is that the irrigation authorities duly sanctioned the installation of siphon and size of pipe for taking water from canal maintained by the State Government for the purpose of giving water for irrigation to the agricultural land of the petitioners and with the help of said sanction orders, the petitioners are getting the water for irrigation to their agricultural land since last more than 15 years. Then, in the year about 2007, abruptly, the respondents passed the order to stop this facility and directed to remove the siphons. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners preferred several writ petitions and some of which were decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 161/2006- Purna Ram & Anr. vs. The State of Raj. & Ors. vide judgment dated 27.2.2007. The stand of the writ petitioners was that they, after due sanction from the competent authority, installed the siphon system and started availing irrigation facility for their agriculture field and for that purpose, developed their land and even obtained the financial assistance from the banks and burdened themselves in anticipation that they will get good crops because now their land is irrigated land. Therefore, action of the respondents after 15 years, of stopping the petitioners' irrigation and removal of the siphons is wholly unwarranted as well as illegal.

6. The respondents, in the earlier round of litigation, admitted that though siphons were sanctioned but that was only a temporary sanction/ arrangement and was to continue till the land is otherwise provided irrigation facility. It was also specifically submitted that the number of siphons and size of pipes were also sanctioned but taking advantage of the fact of sanction of siphons, various farmers have commissioned more than the sanc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document