Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rampratap vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 December, 2022
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11655/2020
1. Rampratap S/o Shri Manphool Ram, Aged About 62 Years,
2. Bhadar Ram S/o Shri Gangaram, Aged About 72 Years,
3. Arvind S/o Shri Sultan Singh, Aged About 50 Years,
4. Deep Singh S/o Shri Raja Singh, Aged About 54 Years, All
are resident Of VPO Dulmana, Tehsil Pilibanga, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Water Resources, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle,
Hanumangarh.
3. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division-Ii,
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Baltej Singh
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Saloni Malpani
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
12/12/2022
1. The present writ petition has been filed claiming the following
relief:-
(i) The impugned order dated 17.08.2020 (Annex-
P/5) may kindly be quashed and set aside
with all consequential benefits and the
respondents may kindly be restrained to
change the outlet of Chak 7 PBN without
following Rule 11 of the Rules of 1955."
(ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction
which this Hon'ble Court may deems just
proper in the facts and circumstances of the
(2 of 3) [CW-11655/2020]
case may kindly be passed in favour of the
petitioner.
(iii) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may
kindly be allowed with costs."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
were not given the opportunity of hearing before passing the
impugned order dated 17.08.2020. He further submits that by the
impugned order, the changes are being given effect to without
giving an opportunity of hearing. 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.
3. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the
controversy involved in the present case is covered by 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).
4. 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.
5. 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
17.08.2020.
6. 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
given a proper opportunity of hearing before giving effect to the
(3 of 3) [CW-11655/2020]
impugned order, and also the respondents need to abide by Rule
11(2) of the Rules of 1955.
7. 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.
8. 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 17.08.2020. The stay application as
well as all pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
74-KashishS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
