Chhindarpal Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2276 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1366/2022

1. Chhindarpal Singh S/o Shri Ajayab Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Chak 6DD Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.

2. Gurdeep Singh S/o Shri Ajayab Singh, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Chak 6DD Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.

3. Makhan Singh S/o Shri Bhupendra Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Chak 6DD Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.

4. Mandeep Singh S/o Shri Karnail Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Chak 6DD Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Served Through Secretary Water Resources Department, Rajasthan Jaipur.

2. Executive Engineer, Canal Area Development (CAD) OFD Division-I IGNP Bikaner

3. Superintending Engineer, Canal Area Development Ofd Circle, IGNP Bikaner.

4. District Collector, Sri Ganganagar.

5. M/s Kusum Construction Company, Village Nagarsar, Tehsil Kolayat District Bikaner Through Its Proprietor.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. N.R. Budania
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG with
                               Ms. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                    Order

09/02/2022

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have

challenged the order dated 31.12.2021, passed by the Executive

Engineer, Canal Area Development (CAD) OFD Division -IGNP,

Bikaner.

(2 of 3) [CW-1366/2022]

2. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent-

state, in which a preliminary objection has been raised that the

petitioner has concealed the factum of having filed a civil suit for

injunction on 05.01.2022, wherein the trial Court has refused to

grant interim injunction. It is contended that as the petitioners

have filed the present writ petition without disclosing the aforesaid

facts, the same is liable to be dismissed.

3. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Additional Advocate General

submitted that the pakka water course is being constructed at the

request of farmers/cultivators, located at the tail end, who are

unable to get requisite water on account of pilferage and seepage.

4. In response to the preliminary objection raised, Mr. Budania,

learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the present

respondent No.3 was not party in the civil suit, therefore, it cannot

be said to be a concealment of the material fact.

5. In support of his contention aforesaid, learned counsel relied

upon the judgment dated 17.03.2004, of Hon'ble the Supreme

Court rendered in the case of Civil Appeal No.1650/2004: S.J.S.

Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors reported

in AIR2004SC2421.

6. Mr. Budania, further submitted that the petitioners have no

in-principle grievance or objection for construction of the pakka

water course, but they have approached this Court with the prayer

that the construction of pakka water course be deferred for some

time so that they can harvest their crop.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

8. Firstly, dealing with the contention of concealment of facts,

in the opinion of this Court maybe the parties in the civil suit are

(3 of 3) [CW-1366/2022]

not exactly the same and some of the respondents are different,

but the fact remains that the suit had been filed for the same

cause.

9. In the opinion of this Court, in the guise of different parties,

the petitioners have concealed the relevant fact of having filed a

suit for injunction, which has a material bearing on the present

case and the present petition deserves to be dismissed on that

count alone.

10. Even if the writ petition is entertained on merit, this Court is

of the view that the petitioner have no vested right of restraining

the respondent-state from constructing a pakka water course.

11. The vested or self serving interest of the petitioners must

concede to the rights of the larger populace. The water course is

being constructed for the benefit of larger population and farmers

of the area and the petitioners' trivial interest, that too based on

an apprehension that some part of their crop would be adversely

affected, cannot be given any preference or weightage.

12. The writ petition, therefore, fails on both the counts.

13. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 20-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)