Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, JJ.
Hardeep Singh and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10774 of 2010
Decided On : 18-09-2019
Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 – Rule 11 - Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 – Amendment to Rule 11 – Challenged - Act of 2000 provides for democratization of the process of irrigation management in the villages and increased farmer participation. According to the objects of the Act, it "is an act to provide for farmers participation in the management of irrigation system and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto". Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 35 provide for a Water Users Association Managing Committee of the WUA, Managing Committee of the Distributory Committee, Managing Committee of the Project Committee and the Apex Committee- Grievance redressal mechanism reveals that there is substantial departure from the 1954 Act and pre-amended 1955 Rules, which provided that orders of the Divisional Irrigation Officers were appealable to the Superintending Irrigation Officer whose order was final. Other provisions of the said enactments are mostly independent of each other and the later Act, reiterates in Section 2(2), that if any term or expression used is not explained or defined, it shall be as defined by the Act of 1954 – whether a person can claim relief under the Act of 1954 if the Water Users Association or any appellate body contemplated by the Act of 2000 is not formed, or alternatively would the non-formation of the appellate body render the process of seeking relief under the Act of 2000 as nugatory, therefore, relief would have to be had under the Act of 1954 -Held, The well settled principle is that when the words in a statute are clear, plain and unambiguous and only one meaning can be inferred, the Courts are bound to give effect to the said meaning irrespective of consequences. If the words in the statute are plain and unambiguous, it becomes necessary to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words used declare the intention of the Legislature. In Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan, AIR 1957 SC 907, it was held that if the words used are capable of one construction only then it would not be open to the Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act - amendment to Rule 11 would in essence display that a person can claim alternative relief by preferring an application before Divisional Irrigation Officer only when the Water Users Association has not been formed. It is not mentioned whether the absence of appellate body would entitle the applicant to seek recourse to the jurisdiction of Divisional Irrigation Officer. In the light of the above, the wording of the rule being clear, it does not seem appropriate to intervene with the intention of the legislature – Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. The present writ petition challenges an amendment to Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "1955 Rules") by notification dated 17.05.2010 on the ground of it being beyond the scope of the parent legislation, i.e., Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "1954 Act").
2. The 1954 Act governs the issues related to irrigation; the subsequently enacted Farmers' Participation in Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2000") also covers some aspects of management of irrigation systems. Under these legislations, the 1955 Rules, and the Rajasthan Farmers Participation in Management of Irrigation Systems Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "2002 Rules") respectively were framed.
3. The Act of 2000 provides for democratization of the process of irrigation management in the villages and increased farmer participation. According to the objects of the Act, it "is an act to provide for farmers participation in the management of irrigation system and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto". Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 35 provide for a Water User's Association (hereinafter referred to as "WUA"), Managing Committee of the WUA, Managing Committee of the Distributory Committee, Managing Committee of the Project Committee and the Apex Committee. A reading of the grievance redressal mechanism reveals that there is substantial departure from the 1954 Act and pre-amended 1955 Rules, which provided that orders of the Divisional Irrigation Officers were appealable to the Superintending Irrigation Officer whose order was final. Other provisions of the said enactments are mostly independent of each other and the later Act, reiterates in Section 2(2), that if any term or expression used (in the Act of 2000) is not explained or defined, it shall be as defined by the Act of 1954.
4. The petitioners highlight that there are two contradictory provisions in the Act of 2002 vis-à-vis the Act of 1954, those being- (i) the powers of maintenance of Warabandi (barabandi) to be regulated by and (ii) the grievance redress mechanism.
5. One Mukhtyar Singh (late father of the fifth, seventh and ninth respondents and Jeet Singh, sixth respondent (and late father of eighth respondent), were owners of parts of land in Chak 22 RB in Sri Ganganagar district. There are two systems of barabandi (warabandi) prevalent in 1317.12 bighas of the CCA (Canal Command Area) of Chak 22 RB viz. Khatewar barabandi in 188 bighas and Panchayati barabandi in 1065 bighas. Mukhtyar Singh and Jeet Singh had filed an application dated 2.5.2008 with the Executive Engineer (Divisional Irrigation Officer) for establishing Khatewar barabandi in the entire Chak. The Executive Engineer, by order dated 18.06.2010, dismissed the application upon examining the report made by the Assistant Engineer. Aggrieved by that order, the fifth to ninth respondents filed an appeal before the Superintending Engineer who rejected it and upheld the said order on 10.08.2010.
6. Thereafter, the fifth respondent, Gurmej Singh (son of Mukhtyar Singh), moved an application before Principal Secretary, Water Resources, Jaipur for introduction of Khatewar barabandi in the entire Chak on 12.10.2010. The Principal Secretary, upon receiving the application, sought a report from the third respondent i.e. the Superintending Engineer, who furnished it on 13.10.2010. On 02.11.2010, the Principal Secretary, by his letter directed the Superintending Engineer, to introduce Khatewar barabandi through the Water Users Association in the entire Chak on account of the Gazette notification dated 13.05.2010, amending Rule 11 of the 1955 Rules, empowering the WUA to establish permanent barabandi in a Chak.
7. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Principal Secretary. He challenges, inter alia the vires of the amended Rule 11 of the 1955 Rules (as amended on 17.05.20
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
