Back
NUPUR BHATI
Savitri Devi, W/o. Shri Sahiram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Though the matter is listed under ‘Orders’ category’ but upon the joint request made by learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
2. The instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming following reliefs:
(i) The impugned order dated 28.07.2007 (Annex-P/2) passed by the respondent no. 3 and the order dated 11.06.2018 passed by respondent no. 2 may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.
(ii) The respondents may kindly be restrained to open the water course through the land of petitioners.”
3. The factual matrix of the case in brief are that the agricultural land of petitioners is situated in Chak 2 KBM, Stone No. 327/386 in Killa No. 13/2, Killa No.14 to 25 ad-measuring13 Bighas Command land, in the name of one Shri Sahiram, who is the husband of Petitioner No. 1 and father of Petitioners No. 2 to 5, who expired on 29.03.2007. In regular records, the land is still recorded in the name of Shri Sahiram. The land aforesaid was earli
The requirement of consent for construction of a water course and the binding nature of concurrent findings of fact.
Fields of parties has been continuing for last 32 years, and thus, after lapse of such a long period, petitioner cannot raise any objection.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the orders passed by the Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer were not sustainable as they violated the provisions of the Rajasthan ....
The Superintending Irrigation Officer has the authority to modify or revise the order passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer, and adherence to the statutory procedure and consideration of the in....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the existence of a water course by means of prescription and sanctioned warabandi under the Haryana Canal and Drainage ....
The Superintending Canal Officer's order modifying restoration of a water course was deemed arbitrary and illegal, reaffirming the petitioner's rights under Section 24(1) of the Haryana Canal and Dra....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Executive Engineer to follow due process and the Appellate Authority's findings on the equitable supply of water and the pr....
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
