Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jai Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 January, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2842/2019
1. Jai Prakash S/o Shri Hansh Raj, Aged About 38 Years,
Kankarwala, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner (Raj.).
2. Ratanlal S/o Shri Puran Ram, Aged About 45 Years,
Kankarwala, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner.
3. Ramunath S/o Shri Bholanath, Aged About 66 Years,
Kankarwala, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner.
4. Ranjit S/o Shri Manaram, Aged About 63 Years, Vilalge
Baderan, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner.
5. Premaram S/o Shri Manaram, Aged About 34 Years,
Village Baderan , Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner.
6. Paradevi W/o Late Shri Chhakuram, Aged About 45 Years,
Village Baderan , Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner.
7. Mohar Singh S/o Shri Jagmalgar, Aged About 45 Years,
Village Kankarwala, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner.
8. Gangaram S/o Shri Jagmalgar, Aged About 35 Years,
Village Kankarwala, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner.
9. Mohandas S/o Shri Budhadas Swami, Aged About 50
Years, Village Kankarwala, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District
Bikaner.
10. Jayshree Devi W/o Mamraj, Aged About 32 Years,
Kumana Bas, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Indira Gandhi Nahar Mandal, Secretariat, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Chief Engineer, Indira Gandhi Nahar Priyojna,
Bikaner, District Bikaner.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Sahwa Lift Circle, Ignp,
Bikaner.
4. The Executive Engineer, Kanwarsen Lift Division, Ignp
Loonkaransar, District Bikaner.
5. Shri Bhanwar Singh Bhati, Minister Stat Of Rajasthan
Higher Education (Independent Charge), Revenue,
Colonization, Agriculture Command Area Development
And Water User Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
6. Vidhya Devi W/o Shri Shyokaran Jat, Kankarwala, Tehsil
Loonkaransar, District Bikaner.
7. Kama W/o Shri Kishanlal Jat, Kankarwala, Tehsil
Loonkaransar, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
(2 of 5) [CW-2842/2019]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hamir Singh Sidhu on VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG on VC
Mr. A.R. Godara on VC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
25/01/2022
1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its
highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to
refrain from coming to the Courts.
2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following
relief:
"By an appropriate writ, order and direction, the
impugned orders annex P/8 dated 20.09.2018 as well
as the order dated 31.01.2019 annex P/16 passed by
the respondent no.5 minister concerned may kindly be
quashed and set aside"
3. The facts in brief, as noticed by this Court, are that
respondents no. 6 and 7 filed an application to transfer their land
from chak no. 8 BHM to 10 BHM. However, the petitioner made an
averment stating that Chak no. 10 BHM has a tight command
land, and allowing such transfer would reduce the available water
to the existing farmers in Chak No. 10 BHM.
4. However, this contention that Chak No. 10 has a tight
command land is refused by the State respondents, while
observing that the water course from head to tail has been
constructed while giving the requisite slope, to ensure that the
water level at the head of the water course is the appropriate
length , and the slope between the 13 murabbas falling between
(3 of 5) [CW-2842/2019]
the head and tail is equivalent in length, and is 0.25 ft. more than
the total required slope, per murabba.
5. Subsequently, after the concerned authority conducted an
inquiry of the land, basis the application filed by the respondents
no. 6 and 7, and generated a report of the same, and in
accordance with due process, the Chief Engineer, Indira Gandhi
Nahar Pariyojana forwarded a communciation to the Secretary,
Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana Mandal, Jaipur, with a
recommendation to grant the transfer of the land in question, and
that vide order dated 20.09.2018, the State Government granted
permission for transfer of the 28 bighas of land falling under Chak
no. 8 BHM to Chak no. 10 BHM.
6. In consequence of the above, the concerned authority vide
orders dated 20.09.2018 and 29.01.2019, permitted the transfer
of the land in question from Chak no. 8 BHM to no. 10 BHM, as
under Rule 11(2) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules,
1955, to the said respondents and provided them with requisite
water required for the farming and irrigation activities
respectively.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are
multiple prior orders, as placed on the record, denying the transfer
of the same land in question to the respondents no. 6 and 7, and
that the land was transferred subsequently through the two
impugned orders, after the said private respondents approached
the concerned Minister.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he
was not afforded an opportunity of hearing, in violation of the
principles of natural justice and that the impugned orders were
passed adverse to his interests.
(4 of 5) [CW-2842/2019]
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
concerned authority did not have the authority to review the
earlier order and pass fresh orders, permitting the transfer of the
land in question from Chak no. 8 BHM to no. 10 BHM.
10. In support the his submissions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner cited the following judgments at the bar, Toda Ram
and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1998) 3 RLW
1603, Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. Vs. The Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. AIR 1978 SC 851, K.C.
Bajaj Vs. State of Rajasthan RLR 2001 (3) 120, Devdutt Vs.
Union of India and Ors. SCC 2008 (8) 725, Canara Bank Vs.
V.K. Awasthy SCC 2005 (6) 321, Patel Narshi Thakershi and
Ors. Vs. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji 1970 SC 1273.
11. Learned counsels for the State parties, submits that with
regard to the transfer of the land in question, there was an
opposition by 20% of the farmers in Chak no.10 by the concerned
farmers, and that if the transfer is made then the boundary of the
land in question from Chak no.8 to no. 10 would unfairly be
altered, and the Chak line would not be along the Murabba line;
and further that water for farming and irrigation would be
unavailable to certain lands, if the transfer is so made.
Furthermore, that the transfer from Chak no. 8 to no. 10, where
there is no proper sewer drainage system, and would create
problems for the farmers, and additionally, if such a a transfer is
permitted that it would lead to multiple such requests from other
farmers, and may lead to several technical difficulties for the State
to accommodate such claims.
12. This Court takes note of the order dated 28.07.2021,
wherein the concerned authority stayed the order dated
(5 of 5) [CW-2842/2019]
20.09.2018, by which the transfer of the land from Chak no. 8
BHM to 10 BHM was to be made. However, the sanctioned amount
of water (0.053 cusec) would be adjusted from Chak no.8 BHM to
no. 10 BHM, and thus the technical difficulty of water allotment
thereby stands extinguished, and that the sewer drain line of land
situate Chak. no. 8 BHM would remain as is, and not be
transferred to 10 BHM, thereby fulfilling the need of the private
respondents no. 6 and 7, and is also in the interest of the
petitioner and without causing an adverse impact on the State
machinery.
13. This Court also observes, as is reflected from the record of
the present petition, that 80% of the concerned farmers were
ready and willing for the transfer of the said land from Chak no. 8
BHM to Chak no. 10 BHM.
14. The issue therefore, stands settled in light of the order dated
28.07.2021, as the difficulties regarding the output of water have
been resolved by the State authorities, and the transfer of the said
land in question from Chak no. 8 BHM to no. 10 BHM was
therefore found to be unnecessary and were stayed, and hence,
the present petition stands dismissed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
90-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
