SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Raj) 963

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
B.R.Arora, A.S.Godara, JJ.
Bhupendra Singh - Appellant
Versus
Executive Engineer, Gang Canal - Respondent
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 853 of 1986.
Decided On : 11-04-1996

Advocates:
For the Appellant:Rajendra Mehta, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S.N. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Department:R.P. Dave, Advocate.

Discontinuation of water supply justified due to lack of sanction by the State Government as per Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955.

Headnote:

Irrigation Rules - Water Supply - The court dismissed the appeal against the judgment that discontinued the supply of water to the petitioner's fisheries tank, citing the lack of sanction by the State Government for water supply beyond one year as per Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, an unemployed graduate, applied for water supply to establish a fish-breeding farm. The Divisional Irrigation Officer allowed the application but later discontinued the water supply, leading to the appellant filing a writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the discontinuation of water supply was justified as no sanction by the State Government was obtained for water supply beyond one year. The court directed the appellant to move an application under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1955 to the State Government through the Divisional Irrigation Officer.

Issues: Discontinuation of water supply, lack of sanction by the State Government, and the appellant's right to establish a fish-breeding farm.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discontinuation of water supply was justified as per Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955, due to the lack of sanction by the State Government for water supply beyond one year.

Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, and the appellant was granted fifteen days to move an application under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1955 to the State Government through the Divisional Irrigation Officer.

JUDGMENT

1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.5.86 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant and directed the State Government to dispose of the petitioner's application, if any pending, within the period of two months and till the period of two months, the status quo, as it existed that day, shall be maintained.

2. Appellant-Petitioner being an unemployed Graduate, in order to establish a fish-breeding farm as a small scale industry, moved an application before the Divisional Irrigation Officer, Gang Canal, North Division, Sri Ganganagar, for sanction of water supply for this purpose and submitted the detailed plan for the establishment of the fish-breeding farm in his land bearing Square No. 20 Kila No. 3 of Chak2-g-I at Sri Ganganagar. The application filed by the petitioner-appellant was allowed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer and vide order dated 18.6.80 he was asked to deposit Rs. 3750/-as the water charges for one year. The supply of water to the fisheries tank of the appellant-petitioner was made by the Irrigation Authorities. After completion of one year, the appellant-petitioner again deposited the amount and the Divisional Irrigation Officer continued the supply of the water to the fisheries tank of the appellant for another year. Thereafter the supply of the water to the fisheries tank of the appellant was stopped vide order Annexure 9 annexed with the writ petition. The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the order Annexure. 9 passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer discontinuing the supply of the water to his fisheries tank. The writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant was dismissed. It is against this judgment dated 7.5.86 that the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. While admitting the appeal, the respondents were directed not to discontinue the water supply to the appellant- petitioner's fisheries tank vide order dated 4.7.86. The adinterim stay order passed by this Court on 4.7.86 was later-on confirmed. As per Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainnage Rules, 1955, the Divisional Irrigation Officer is authorised to make contract for the supply of water for the purposes other than the Irrigation for any term not exceeding one year and for the term exceeding one year, the previous sanction of the State Government shall be necessary. It is an admitted fact that no sanction by the State Government was given in the present case for the supply of water to the petitioner- appellant's fisheries tank beyond the period of one year and, therefore, the order Annexure 9 passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer was just and proper which could have been passed under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1955.

4. While deciding the writ petition, a direction was given to the State Government to decide the application, if any, moved by the petitioner before the State Government but no such application was moved by the petitioner-appellant before the State Government and, therefore, no order could have been passed by the State Government. The petitioner-appellant's fisheries farm is still in existence and the water supply to it is being made on the basis of the stay order passed by this Court. Since for the last more than fifteen years the appellant-petitioner is running his fish-breeding farm, we, therefore, think it proper to grant fifteen days' time to the appellant-petitioner to move an application under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1955 to the State Government through the Divisional Irrigation Officer and the State Government will consider such application within the period of two months thereafter and till the disposal of the application, the water supply to the petitioner-appellant's fisheries tank may not stopped.

5. With these observations, the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed

*******



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top