Point of Law: Fields of parties has been continuing for last 32 years, and thus, after lapse of such a long period, petitioner cannot raise any objection.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and i) An appropriate writ, direction or order, the order dated 07.10.2022 (Annexure-10) passed by Executive Engineer, Water Resources, north division, Sri Ganganagar and order dated 04.01.2023 (Annex-12) passed by Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Sri Ganganagar may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) Any other appropriate writ or direction necessary for justice be issued. iii) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in the favour of petitioner.”

2. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the petitioner is an agriculturist and khatedar of the land situated in murabba no. 7 killa no. 1 to 14, and the private respondent also has land in the said murabba, in the name of her husband. And that, the private respondent is also khaatedar of the land situated at murabba no. 15 measuring 14 bighas. The water turn of the land of the petitioner is fixed at naka of killa no.1 of murabba no. 7. There is kachha internal field channel constructed by the petitioner on his land for receiving the water supply from water course which is running through killa nos. 1, 10, 11, 20, 21 of murabba no. 7.

2.1 On 15.04.2019, the private respondent submitted an application before the Executive Engineer in regard to sanctioning of naka and water course through the land (murabba no. 7) of the petitioner; two similar applications were made; one in the year 1997 and the other on 11.05.2005. Subsequent to which, a notice under Rule 4(2) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 (for short, ‘Rules of 1955’) was issued to the petitioner and some other persons on 07.04.2022. Thereafter, objection was filed by the petitioner opposing the sanction of water course and naka through the land of murabba no.7.

2.2 And that the executive engineer allowed the aforementioned application, vide the impugned order dated 07.10.2022, and sanctioned/regularized the water course through the land of killa nos. 1, 10, 11, 20, 21 of murabba no.7.

2.3 The petitioner filed an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, which however, was rejected vide the impugned order dated 04.01.2023, on the ground of the appeal being barred by limitation.

2.4 Aggrieved by the order passed on 07.10.2022 by the Executive Engineer and the order passed on 04.01.2023 by the Superintending Engineer, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel submitted that after issuance of the said notice, the Executive Engineer was under a legal obligation to send the record of water course, as provided by Rule 5 of the Rules of 1955 to the District Collector, while complying with the other prescriptions as contained therein. And that, the procedure as laid down under Sections 21 to 28 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (in short, ‘Act of 1954’), has also not been followed, while passing the impugned order dated 07.10.2022.

3.1 However, as per learned counsel, the Executive Engineer without sending the record to the District Collector and without following the mandatory provision as mentioned above, allowed the application filed by the private respondent vide the impugned order dated 07.10.2022, while ignoring the objection filed by the petitioner.

3.2 Learned counsel thus made an assertion that the said impugned order order was passed de hors the mandatory provisions of the Rules of 1955 and the Act of 1954. He submitted that the impugned order dated 07.10.2022 was passed while placing reliance on Section 29(2) of the Act of 1954, which is nothing, but misreading of the said provision by the executive engineer concerned, as in the present case, the provision contained in Section 29(2) is not at all applicable.

3.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 07.10.2022 on the ground