Balraj Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2874 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2301/2022

1. Gagandeep Singh S/o Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Kharlia, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

2. Palvinder Singh S/o Sh. Uttam Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Kharlia, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

----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-I, Hanumangarh.

----Respondents Connected With (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2309/2022

1. Jarnail Singh S/o Sh. Niranjan Singh, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village 7-Sgr, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

2. Omprakash S/o Sh. Mokhram, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village 7-Sgr (Prempura Dhani), Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

3. Krishan Lal S/o Sh. Ramjas, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Village 7-Sgr (Prempura Dhani), Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Hanumangarh.

(2 of 6) [CW-2301/2022]

3. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division-I, Hanumangarh.

----Respondents (3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2312/2022

1. Prithvi Raj S/o Ramchander, Aged About 46 Years, Village Bhagsar, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

2. Raja Ram S/o Ramarakh, Aged About 68 Years, Village Bhagsar, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through 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-I, Hanumangarh.

----Respondents (4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2324/2022

1. Jaypal S/o Sh. Mansaram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Bhagsar, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh

2. Baljit Singh S/o Sh. Mahender Singh, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Sanghar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

3. Seva Ram S/o Sh. Dungar Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/ o Village Sanghar, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

----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-I, Hanumangarh.

                                                              ----Respondents




                                            (3 of 6)                      [CW-2301/2022]

(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2598/2022

1. Balraj Singh S/o Sh. Harfhul Singh, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village 16-Pbn, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

2. Gurmohan Singh S/o Sh. Gammdur Singh, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village 16-Pbn, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

3. Harpal Singh S/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village 16-Pbn, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

4. Buta Singh S/o Sh. Jarnel Singh, Aged About 62 Years, R/ o Village 16-Pbn, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.

2. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Hanumangarh.

3. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division-I, Hanumangarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S. Sidhu For Respondent(s) : Ms. Saloni Malpani for Ms. Abhilasha Bora For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

22/02/2022

I.A. No.1/2022 in SBCWP No.2598/2022

The application seeking impleadment is disposed of in the

manner that they are permitted to intervene in this matter.

(4 of 6) [CW-2301/2022]

SBCWP Nos.2301/2022, 2309/22, 2312/2022, 2324/2022

and 2598/2022

1. Since in all these writ petitions, common questions of facts

and law are involved, therefore, they are disposed of by this

common order.

2. For the sake of clarity, the facts from SBCWP No.2301/2022

are being taken into account.

3. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition claiming the

following relief:

"(i) The impugned order dated 31.01.2022 (Annex-P/6) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be restrained to change the outlet of Chak 5-SGR without following Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1955.

(ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iii) Writ Petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."

4. 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 31.01.2022

are being given 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.

5. 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. (SBCWP No.9129/2015,

decided on 22.11.2016).

(5 of 6) [CW-2301/2022]

6. 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.

7. 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

31.01.2022.

8. Mr. Sushil Bishnoi, learned counsel, who has moved the

application seeking impleadment on behalf of the agriculturists of

tail end, submits that there is no requirement of providing an

opportunity of hearing to the agriculturists in terms of Rule 11(2)

of the Rules of 1955.

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

perusing the record of the case, along with 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

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

11(2) of the Rules of 1955.

10. 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.

11. In view of the above, the present petitions are allowed, and

accordingly, the respondents are directed to give a proper

(6 of 6) [CW-2301/2022]

opportunity of hearing to the petitioners so also the applicants -

agriculturists of the tail end and also deal with the compliance of

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

impugned order dated 31.01.2022.

12. The stay application as well as all pending applications stand

disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 32-35,37-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)