Sohanlal vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 655 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10404/2020

Sohanlal S/o Sh. Khirajram, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Chak No. 23 JRK/B, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government Of Rajasthan, Water Resources Department, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

3. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Circle Hanumangarh, Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

4. Sahabram S/o Tolaram, Resident Of Goluwala, Niwadan, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

5. Sukhram S/o Tolaram, Resident Of Goluwala, Niwadan, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

6. Satyanarayan S/o Tolaram, Resident Of Goluwala, Niwadan, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

7. Antram S/o Tolaram, Resident Of Goluwala, Niwadan, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

8. Mahendra Kumar S/o Tolaram, Resident Of Goluwala, Niwadan, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. K.R. Saharan
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Dron Kaushik
                               Ms. Abhilasha Bora (through VC)



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                                    Order

11/01/2021





                                        (2 of 3)                      [CW-10404/2020]

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being

aggrieved with the judgment dated 29.09.2020 passed by the

respondent No.2 - Superintending Engineer, Water Resources

Circle, Hanumangarh, whereby the appeal preferred by the

petitioner under the provisions of the Rajasthan Irrigation and

Drainage Act, 1954 and Rules made thereunder has been rejected

while treating it as not maintainable. The petitioner preferred the

said appeal against the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the

respondent No.3 - Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division

Second, Hanumangarh, whereby it had directed the concerned

Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Division Ghaggar,

Hanumangarh to open the already sanctioned water channel,

which is closed from long time. The respondent No.3 has passed

the said order on an application preferred by the agriculturist i.e.

private respondent Nos.4 to 8, who are supposed to get water in

their agriculture fields from already sanctioned water channel.

The respondent No.2 is of the opinion that the respondent

No.3 vide order dated 01.10.2019 has only ordered for opening

already sanctioned water channel and has not ordered for sanction

of new channel, therefore, the appeal preferred by the petitioner

is not maintainable.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, after going

through the impugned orders and after going through the

averments made in this writ petition as well as the reply to the

writ petition filed on behalf of the private respondents, I do not

find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the respondent

No.2 as the respondent No.3 has simply directed to open the

already sanctioned water channel and has not ordered for sanction

of any new water channel.

(3 of 3) [CW-10404/2020]

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has

already moved an application before the concerned Executive

Engineer with a prayer for cancelling/rejecting the already closed

water channel, which is now ordered to be opened.

It is expected that the concerned Executive Engineer shall

consider and decide the application of the petitioner strictly in

accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the

parties.

With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.

Stay petition is also disposed of.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

49-Arun/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)