Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Subhash And Anr vs State And Ors on 1 December, 2022

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12821/2015

1. Subhash S/o Shri Jagmal, B/c Jat, Aged about 50 years, R/o Chak 14 S.P.M., Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar.

2. Gopi Ram S/o Shri Jagmal, B/c Jat, Aged about 44 years, R/o Chak 14 S.P.M., Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan Through Executive Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Hanumangarh

2. Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Hanumangarh

3. Maya D/o Hajari Ram Jat

4. Sharda D/o Hajari Ram Jat

5. Radhey Shyam S/o Late Guddi Devi D/o Hajari Ram Jat. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 all resident of Chak 14 S.P.M., Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar.

6. Legal Representatives of Jangir Singh S/o Bishan Singh:- 6/1 Ram Singh S/o Late Shri Jangir Singh B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Kharuwali, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar. 6/2 Gurnam Singh S/o Late Shri Jangir Singh B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Kewalawali, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. G.R. Goyal
                               Ms. Varsha Goyal
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. B.S. Sandhu
                               Ms. Saloni Malpani for
                               Ms. Abhilasha Bora


       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
                        Order

01/12/2022

The tracking report for respondent Nos. 6/1 and 6/2 is taken

on record.

As per the tracking report filed for service upon respondent

Nos. 6/1 and 6/2, the notices are reported to be delivered, thus,

service upon respondent Nos. 6/1 and 6/2 is complete.

Despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of

respondent Nos. 6/1 and 6/2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2 of 5) [CW-12821/2015]

The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 20.10.2015 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Water

Resources Division, Hanumangarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is an

ongoing dispute with respect to the performance of the agreement

to sell the land in question. He submits that there are rival claims

before the courts seeking ownership of the land. The matter with

respect to the same is pending consideration in First Appeal

bearing S.B.C.F.A. No. 721/2006 before this Court. He further

submits that the present controversy is only with respect to the

non-implementation of the order dated 05.11.2005 (Annex. 5)

passed by Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division-I, Hanumangarh

Junction, whereby the water turn was fixed in favour of Khata

No.84 cancelling the water turn of Khata No.96.

Learned counsel further submits that vide order dated

05.11.2005, the water which was being received on the land ad

measuring 4 Bighas (Khata No.84) was changed vide letter dated

26.04.2005 and this water was being supplied to the land of Khata

No.96. On a challenge being made, the Executive Engineer,

Irrigation Division-I, Hanumangarh Junction vide order dated

05.11.2005 allowed the appeal/application of the

appellant/applicant and ordered that the land of 4 Bighas (Khata

No.84) will continue to get the water supply for irrigation. This

order dated 05.11.2005 was assailed by way of filing an appeal

before the Superintending Engineer by respondent No.6 Jangir

Singh, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated

04.04.2006. The order dated 04.04.2006 was not challenged

further and thus, the same had attained finality.

(3 of 5) [CW-12821/2015]

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the First

Appeal, since an interim order was passed for maintaining the

status quo with respect to the possession of the land but the

respondent-authorities did not comply with the order passed by

the Executive Engineer on 05.11.2005. He submits that in these

circumstances, an application for clarification of the interim order

was filed before this Court and this Court vide order dated

20.01.2015, clarified/modified the earlier status quo order and it

was left open for the irrigation authorities with respect to the

grant of water turn over the land in dispute.

In these circumstances, after the clarification made by this

Court on 20.01.2015, the petitioners preferred an application

before the Executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer vide

order dated 04.08.2015 allowed the same with a direction to

comply with the water turn facility in accordance with the earlier

order dated 05.11.2005. Against this order dated 04.08.2015, the

respondents preferred an appeal and the appellate authority vide

order dated 20.10.2015 passed an order of status quo to be

maintained on the water turn on the subject piece of land and the

same was further ordered to be decided after the decision of the

First Appeal with respect to the ownership of the land. Learned

counsel submits that the appellate authority committed an error

by passing the order dated 20.10.2015 as the present dispute

does not relate with respect to the ownership/title of the land and

since the order dated 05.11.2005 passed by the Executive

Engineer is only with respect to the water turn and for providing

the water to the 4 Bighas of land as per the Khata No.84,

therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority on

20.10.2015 is beyond the scope of the subject matter before him.

(4 of 5) [CW-12821/2015]

He, therefore, prays that this writ petition may be allowed and the

respondents may be directed to comply with the order dated

05.11.2005 passed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division-

I, Hanumangarh Junction.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently

argued that the water turn cannot be made in favour of the

petitioner until the rights on the land are finalized. He further

submits that the respondents are in possession of the land in

question and, therefore, the Superintending Engineer was right

while allowing their appeal vide order dated 20.10.2015. He,

therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the relevant record of the case including the order

impugned dated 20.10.2015.

The present controversy is not for deciding the title and

ownership of the land in question. The only dispute before this

Court is that in pursuance of the order issued by the Executive

Engineer on 05.11.2005, the water turn (Khata No.84) is to be

restored. Against this order dated 05.11.2005, the respondent

No.6 preferred an appeal and the same was rejected vide order

dated 04.04.2006. In these circumstances, the order for water

turn to be given on 4 Bighas of land (Khata No.84) has become

final and, therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to

supply the water turn to 4 Bighas of land as per Khata No.84.

There might have been some confusion with the respondent-

authorities with respect to the status quo issued by this Court in

the First Appeal preferred by respondent No.6, however, that was

also clarified by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2015. The order

dated 20.01.2015 reads as under:-

(5 of 5) [CW-12821/2015]

"Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the blanket stay order directing both the parties to maintain status-quo deserves to be modified and the issue of water-turn over the land in dispute should be left open to be decided by the Irrigation Authorities in accordance with the relevant Act and Rules framed thereunder. It is directed that the ex parte interim order dated 21.12.2006 directing both the parties to maintain status quo will not come in way of the Irrigation Authorities, while deciding the issue of water-turns for the land in dispute."

Since the case in hand does not pertain to the

ownership/title/sale of the land in question and is only confined to

the water turn to be made available on the subject piece of land,

this Court is firmly of the view that since the order dated

05.11.2005 attained finality, the respondents are under an

obligation to comply with the same and supply the water as per its

turn to 4 Bighas of land (Khata No.84).

In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is

allowed and the order dated 20.10.2015 passed by the

Superintending Engineer, is quashed and set aside. The

respondents are directed to comply with the order passed by the

Executive Engineer on 05.11.2005.