BALIA, J.—By this writ petition, petitioners challenge the order Ex.l dated 6/10/1986 by the Executive Engineer, Gang Canal, North Division, Sriganganagar, order Ex.2 dated 26/12/88 by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Sriganganagar and order Ex. 3 dated 5/9/91 by Addl. Chief Engineer, Irrigation, North Division, Hanumahgarh.

(2) Brief facts giving rise to the aforesaid petition, may be stated thus petitioner No. 1 Jarnel Singh is a resident of Chak 49 G.G. Tehsil Karanpur and petitioner No. 2 Harchand Singh is co-sharer of Chak 47 G.G.I. of Tehsil Karanpur District Sri Ganganangar. Land falling in chak 47 G.G.I. is being irrigated by water supply through an outlet situated at stone No 143 of Canal G.G. minor. Two separate outlets for supply of water for irrigating lands of Chak 49 G.G., and Chak 47.G.G. II were situated at Stone No. 151 of Canal G.G. Minor. Two outlets through which Chak 47 G.G. II and Chak 49 were supplied water for irrigation were situated at the tail and of the Canal G.G. Minor. On an application made by respondent No. 5 Mukhtiar Singh, Executive Engineer, Gang Canal, North Division, Sriganganagar passed an order on 6/10/1986 (Ex.1) and ordered shifting of the outlet through which chack 47 G.G. II was supplied with water from stone No. 151 of Canal G.G. Minor to Stone No. 106 of Canal F.G. Minor. It is not disputed that before passing the said order, notices were issued to all co-sharers of 47 G.G. II and no objection on behalf of any of the co-sharer of Chak 47 G.G. II was raised. However, the present petitioners preferred appeals before the Superintending Engineer respondent No. 3 against the order dated 6/10/1986 (Ex.1). The appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed by a common order dated 26.12.1988 (Ex.2). Further appeal before the Addl. Chief Engineer also met with no success. The order passed by the Addl. Chief Engineer is dated 5/9/91 (Ex.3). The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid three orders through the above writ petition.

(3) A caveat has been entered on behalf of respondent No. 5 Mukhtiar Singh to oppose the admission of the petition and a reply on behalf of Mukhtiar Singh has also been filed.

(4) We have heard Mr. S.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H.S. Sandhu, learned counsel for the Caveator respondent No. 5 and perused the orders.

(5) It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that impugned orders have been passed in exercise of powers conferred under r. 11(3) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955, hereinafter called as "the Rules" which is purported to have been framed for giving effect to section 31 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954, hereinafter called as "the Act." It is contended before us that r. 11(3) of the Rules is ultravires the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the orders passed under the said rule of the Rules are wholly without jurisdiction. The Act does not authorise shifting, varying or opening of any outlet under the provisions of the Act. As a limb of this contention, it was also contended that r. 11(3) of the Rules has been stated to have been framed to give effect to provisions of sec. 31 of the Act but a reading of section 31 goes to show that no such rule can be framed for giving effect to section 31 as the rule 11(3) of the Rules.

(6) It will be appropriate to make reference to the text of r. 11(3) and other relevant provisions of the Act which have a bearing on the controversy which are as under : —

"Rule 11(1)...................

(2). .......................

(3) Notice for the reduction and removal of outlets with brief reasons therefor, shall be issued by the Divisional Irrigation Officer and given adequate publicity through Panchayats requiring all persons affected by such reduction or removal, who may wish to make objections to submit their objections in writing to the Divisional Irrigation Officer within 15 days from the date of issue of such notice. The Divisional Irrigation Officer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document