Krishan Lal vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 4903 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4968/2020

1.     Krishan Lal S/o Banwarilal Jat, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
       Chak 28 Pbn, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh
       (Raj.)
2.     Hanuman S/o Sheraram Jat, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
       Chak 28 Pbn, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh
       (Raj.)
3.     Aadram S/o Khetraram Jat, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
       Chak 28 Pbn, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh
       (Raj.)
4.     Nattha Singh S/o Gurdayal Singh, Aged About 50 Years,
       R/o Chak 28 Pbn, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh
       (Raj.)
5.     Gurdayal Singh S/o Shri Lal Singh, Aged About 85 Years,
       R/o Chak 28 Pbn, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh
       (Raj.)
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector
       Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh.
2.     The Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Division II,
       Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
3.     The Superintendent Engineer, Water Resources, Circle
       Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.
                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. H.S. Sidhu
For Respondent(s)        :     Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat, Addl. Govt.
                               Counsel



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                    Order

22/02/2021

1.   In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being

taken while hearing the matters in Court.

                    (Downloaded on 22/02/2021 at 09:00:17 PM)
                                             (2 of 3)                    [CW-4968/2020]



2.   The petitioners have preferred this writ petition claiming the

following relief:


      "A/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
      impugned order dated 20.02.2020 Annexure P/2
      passed by the respondent no.3 along with the P-Form
      attached to it may kindly be declared illegal and be
      quashed and set aside."

3.   Learned        counsel    for    the     petitioners          submits   that   the

petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing before the

changes, in pursuance of the impugned order dated 20.02.2020,

are being give effect to. Learned counsel further submits that Rule

11(2) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 (for

short, 'the Rules of 1955') requires the respondents to take proper

approval from the State Government.

4.   Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment

rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Randheer Singh & Ors. Vs.

The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.9129/2015, decided on 22.11.2016).

5.   On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents fairly

submits that even in the impugned order, it has been observed

that the interest of the farmers shall be protected.

6.   Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the

respondents shall give a proper opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners before giving effect to the impugned order dated

20.02.2020.

7.   After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as

perusing the record of the case, alongwith the aforementioned

judgment cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that a

limited proposition in this case is that the petitioners have to be

                       (Downloaded on 22/02/2021 at 09:00:17 PM)
                                                                            (3 of 3)               [CW-4968/2020]



                                   given a proper opportunity of hearing before giving effect to the

                                   impugned order, and also the respondents need to abide by Rule

                                   11(2) of the Rules of 1955.

                                   8.   It is clear that the proper opportunity of hearing was not

                                   given to the petitioners, and though the learned counsel for the

                                   respondents has pointed out a circular dated 19.08.2011 to

                                   contend that no special sanction is required to be taken from the

                                   State Government, if the outlet is being modified/changed as a

                                   result of modernization process, but the same does not permit the

                                   respondents to deviate from the legislative mandate of Rule 11(2)

                                   of the Rules of 1955.

                                   9.   In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and

                                   accordingly, the respondents are directed to give a proper

                                   opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also deal with the

                                   compliance of Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1955, before giving effect

                                   to the impugned order dated 20.02.2020. The stay application as

                                   well as all pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.



                                                                (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

9-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)