HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MUNNURI LAXMAN
JAGDEV SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 1976 / 2024
Order :
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14047/2024:
1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
“I. The judgment / order dated 28.12.20224 as passed by respondent no.1 in appeal no.94/2023 (Harbhajan Singh & Anr. vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) and the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by Respondent no.2 upon the application preferred by respondent no. 3.may kindly be set-aside and quashed.
II. The application preferred by the present Respondent no.3 (Annex.-3) may kindly be rejected in toto.
III. The respondents may kindly be directed to restore the irrigation supply from the constructed water course up to mid of Kila no.5 of Murabba no.44 and further continue water supply through the diagonally constructed water course for the purpose of connecting to the more than 50-years-old katchawater course.
IV. The respondents may kindly be directed to close the naka i.e. the point created by breaking the pakka water course in the mid of kila no.1 Murabba no.43.
V. Any other relief with this Hon’ble Court deems fit may also kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.”
2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that consensually a pakka watercourse was built by the Command Area Development Department and part of the pakka watercourse was built by the farmers. The respondent authorities at the behest of the private respondent herein have further extended the watercourse on the premise that the existing watercourse has been hampering the movement of the agricultural implements which is beyond the powers of the CAD Department and that has to be decided by the revenue authorities.
3. Learned counsel for the private respondent has contended that the grievance before the authorities was only whether the watercourse that has been existing are within the sanction plan. The private respondent’s claim is that he sought the irrigation authorities to create the watercourse as per the sanction plan. According to him, the watercourse that was created earlier was causing hindrance to the drawing of water to his field, therefore, subsequently, the extension of watercourse was in terms of the sanction plan.
4. Heard both the sides.
5. The impugned order passed by the Executive Engineer as well as the Superintending Engineer has not specifically given a finding whether the previous existing watercourse has impacted the water drawing capacity of the private respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that by virtue of extension of watercourse, the water drawing capacity of water of the private respondent has diminished and, therefore, this issue has to be adjudicated by the original authority.
6. In light of such consensual agreement between the parties, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
i. The impugned order passed by the Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Executive Engineer.
ii. The Executive Engineer is directed to decide whether the existing watercourse, if it was not extended, would diminish the water drawing capacity of the private respondent and respondent authorities shall also see that the watercourse must be taking into consideration the sanction plan and at the same time the existing way if any held by the petitioner shall not be disturbed by virtue of any implementation the sanction plan.
iii. Till such decision is taken, the existing status quo with regard to watercourse shall not be disturbed.
iv. The authorities shall decide the grievance within a reasonable time which shall not be more than two months.
v. Any observation made in the present order shall not come in the way of deciding the issue.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1976/2024:
In light of the order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14047/2024, the present writ petition is disposed of. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back.
The court mandated a reassessment of the irrigation watercourse's impact on agricultural operations, emphasizing adherence to sanction plans and maintaining status quo until a decision is rendered.
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 court emphasized that interim orders protect petitioners' rights without infringing upon the rights of other legally entitled persons, affirming the necessity of due process in administrative act....
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 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....
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 ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.