Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2130
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SUNIL BENIWAL, J.
Surendrapal Singh S/o Bakshish Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9959 of 2022
Decided On : 11-09-2025
For the Appellant : RDSS Kharlia
For the Respondent: Jaya Dadhich
Administrative actions affecting rights must comply with principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 - Provision of water supply to sugarcane fields - Petitioners challenged the removal and size reduction of pipes supplying water necessary for sugarcane cultivation, claiming violation of natural justice and procedural irregularities (Paragraphs 5, 8).
(B) Natural Justice - Action to remove/change water pipes without hearing petitioners deemed ex facie illegal (Paragraph 5).
(C) Administrative Oversight - Entitlement to extra water determined by Coordination Committee based on annual usage, subject to review (Paragraphs 8, 9).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners had complained that their water pipes were changed or removed without due process, impacting their sugarcane production (Paragraphs 4, 5).
Findings of Court:
Court directed that the Committee adjudicate the petitioners' application for continued water supply, emphasizing adherence to norms and opportunity to be heard before adverse actions (Paragraphs 9, 6).
Issues: The primary issue addressed was the legality of the removal of water supply pipes without the opportunity for the petitioners to present their objections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that administrative actions affecting rights must comply with principles of natural justice and that the Coordination Committee holds jurisdictional authority over water supply decisions (Paragraph 5).
Result: Writ petition disposed of in line with previous ruling, affirming the petitioners' right to a hearing and evaluation of their applications for water supply (Paragraphs 9, 6).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural rights concerning water supply (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on lawful water usage and jurisdiction (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
ORDER :
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that identical petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2996/2019 ( Prabhjeet Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. ) has been disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.03.2021.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that similar order may be passed in petitioners’ case also.
3. In case of Prabhjeet Singh (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under :-
‘In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.
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 :-
"1. 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 sugarcanefields, 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 perthe 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”, 2½”, 3”, 3½”and 4” are installed for the agriculture fields falling in the range 35–47 bighas, 48-57 bighas, 58-77 bighas, 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
