Omprakash vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3498 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17842/2019

1. Omprakash S/o Shri Bhadar Ram, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Kishanpura Dikhnada, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.

2. Kuldeep Sharma S/o Shri Brahmanand Sharma, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Kishanpura Dikhnada, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.

3. Prithviraj S/o Khyali Ram, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Kishanpura Dikhnada, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.

4. Naurang Ram S/o Shri Purna Ram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Kishanpura Dikhnada, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Engineer, Water Resource (North Division) Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.

2. The Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division Ii, Hanumangarh.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources, Circle-

Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Navneet Poonia Ms. Saloni Malpani

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order

07/03/2022

1. The present writ petition has been filed claiming the following

relief:-

"A/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order Annex P/5 dated 06.06.2018 Annexure 5 so far as it relates to remove the PD for the agriculturist of Chak 18-19 KSP of Kishanpura

(2 of 3) [CW-17842/2019]

distributary may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents authorities be directed to provide the water supply by constructing the PD at RD-63800 as it was earlier and provide them water supply to it.

B/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be restrained from removing the proportionate distributary established at RD-63800 for Chak 18-19 KSP and restrained them to install the APM Machine to provide the water supply for the agriculturists of Chak 18 KSP. C/ Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances in the case. D/ Writ petition filed by the petitioners 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 06.06.2018. 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

(3 of 3) [CW-17842/2019]

06.06.2018.

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

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 06.06.2018. The stay application as

well as all pending applications stand disposed of accordingly

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

47-payal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)