The entitlement for water supply to sugarcane fields and the actions against misuse of water supply are to be determined in accordance with the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955.

JUDGMENT

1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

2. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that controversy involved in the present writ petition is no more res-integra, as it is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Amar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5897/2015), decided on 15.02.2016 alongwith other connected matters. The said judgment reads as follows :-

"l. By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners, sugarcane growers, are seeking directions to the respondents not to remove/change the size of the pipe installed for adequate water supply to their sugarcane fields, situated in different Chak i.e. 5 G.B.-A & B, 11 G.B.-A, and 12 G.B.-A & B, at Sri Ganganagar.

2.The relevant facts are that the State Government has sanctioned 50 cusecs of water to Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mill Limited. The water sanctioned as aforesaid, is released by the Department of Irrigation to the Rajasthan State Gangangar Sugar Mill Limited, which is allocated to the farmers to grow sugarcane in Gang Canal Area as per the recommendations of the Coordination Committee presided over by General Manager of Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mill Limited. After allocation as per the recommendation of the Coordination Committee, an agreement is entered into between the Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mill Limited and the concerned farmer.

3. As per the procedure laid down, the agriculturists growing the sugarcane are required to submit prescribed form duly filled up to the Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mill Limited, which sanctions extra water to the agriculturists of the chak, taking into consideration the availability of the water and number of agriculturists in the chak, aspirant for extra water for sugarcane crop. It is submitted that for supply of the additional water, apart from the outlet of the chak, an extra pipe is also fixed near the outlet. The size of the pipe is fixed on the basis of the total area to be irrigated for growing the sugarcane. According to the petitioners, the pipes of 2", 2W, 3", 3V2"and 4" are installed for the agriculture fields falling in the range 35-47 bighas, 48-57 bighas, 58-77 big has, 78-99bighas and 100 bighas respectively. It is submitted that on increase or decrease in sugarcane production the size of the pipe is changed but it is not removed unless there is no production of sugarcane or the area wherein sugarcane is produced is not less than 35 bighas.

4.Precisely, the petitioners, who are availing the facility of extra water for sugarcane production for last so many years are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in removing the pipes or changing the size of the pipes in the midst of the crop.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have sown the sugarcane in their chak in complete area and accordingly, after survey, the pipes of requisite sizes were installed, however, the respondents authorities in order to extend undue benefit to their blue eyed persons, are continuously threatening to remove the pipe or reduce the size of pipe. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in attempting to remove the pipe without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners is ex facie illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that the reduction and removal of the pipe without taking into consideration the objections of the petitioners is violative of Rule 11 (3) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules,1955. Learned counsel submitted that the Irrigation Department is only required to look into the list submitted by the Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mill Limited and fix the pipe as per the area growing sugarcane shown in the chak. It is submitted that fixation and removal of the pipe is solely in the domain of respondent no.4 and the Department of Irrigation, distributing agency