Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Bhagirath Pareek vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 March, 2022

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3012/2022

Bhagirath Pareek S/o Shri Kumbhakaran, Aged About 53 Years, Ward No. 23, 10 PBNB, Pilibanga, Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

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

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3170/2022 Lavjot Singh S/o Shri Jagroop Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 28, 12 Pbn, Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. The Executive Officer, Water Resources Division-II, Hanumangarh.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3244/2022

1. Mangal Singh S/o Sh. Buta Singh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village 6-Sgm, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

2. Jaspal Singh S/o Sh. Suryan Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village 7-Sgm, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

3. Tota Singh S/o Sh. Suryan Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village 7-Sgm, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

4. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Raja Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Near Guru Teg Bahadur Gurudwara, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

----Petitioners Versus

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

(2 of 6) [CW-3012/2022]

Secretariat, Jaipur.

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

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

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3296/2022

1. Iqbal Shah S/o Sh. Sajwar Shah, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Dingwala, 19-Pbn/a, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

2. Banshilal S/o Sh. Hetram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Village Bhagsar, 6-Sgr, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

3. Mandar Singh S/o Sh. Sadhu Singh, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Ward No. 7, Village Bhagsar, 6-Sgr, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

4. Sameem Shah S/o Sh. Munsab Shah, Aged About 26 Years, R/o War, Dingwala, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

5. Saddam Hussain S/o Munasaph Shah, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Dingwala, 19-Pbn/a, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

6. Reshma W/o Saravar Shah, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Dingwala, 19-Pbn/a, 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-II, Hanumangarh.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3379/2022

1. Rasalu Ram S/o Girdhari Lal, Aged About 43 Years, Village 7- Sgm, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

2. Jagrup Singh S/o Jarnail Singh, Aged About 48 Years, Village 7- Sgm, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

3. Bhaniram S/o Bheraram, Aged About 78 Years, Village 7-

Sgm, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

4. Kalu Ram S/o Basti, Aged About 75 Years, Village 7- Sgm, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

----Petitioners Versus

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

(3 of 6) [CW-3012/2022]

Secretariat, Jaipur.

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

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

                                                                ----Respondents


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



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                                    Order

28/03/2022

Learned counsel for the petitioners have prayed that they

may be heard on the stay petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay petition.

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

challenging the validity of the orders dated 17.08.2020 passed by

the respondent - Superintending Engineer, Water Resources

Circle, Hanumangarh (SBCWP Nos.3012/2022, 3170/2022 and

3296/2022) and the order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the

respondent - Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Division-II

Hanumangarh (SBCWP Nos.3244/2022 and 3379/2022).

By way of above-referred orders, the respondents have

proposed to change the water outlets from where the irrigation

facilities are being provided to the agricultural fields of the

petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted

that the order dated 17.08.2020 has already been set aside by

this Court by various judgment while holding that the Executive

Engineer has no authority to change the water outlets without

(4 of 6) [CW-3012/2022]

there being prior sanction of the State Government as per the

provisions of Rule 11(2) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage

Rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1955').

Learned counsel for the petitioners have also argued that the

respondent - Executive Engineer has no authority to sanction the

change of water outlets in the agricultural fields of the petitioners

as per Section 17(B) of the Rajasthan Farmers Participation in

Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000 and Rule 53 of the

Rajasthan Farmers' Participation in Management of Irrigation

System Rules, 2002 provides that only a sub-committee

constituted by the Farmers' Organization can sanction or change

of water outlets providing irrigation facilities to the agricultural

fields of the agriculturists.

Learned counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance on

the Division Bench's decision of this Court rendered in the case of

Jarnel Singh and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others,

reported in RLW 1992 (1) 362 has argued that the Division Bench

of this Court has held that changing in the water outlets can be

done by following the law laid down in Rule 11(2) of the Rules of

1955. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted

that the effect and operation of the impugned orders dated

17.08.2020 and 29.01.2021 may be stayed.

It is noticed that against the impugned orders, the

petitioners have preferred these writ petitions only in February

and March 2022 and no reason has been given by the petitioners

in the writ petitions for challenging the said orders with a delay. It

is also to be noticed that on 14.03.2022, this Court while

disposing of applications preferred on behalf of some of the

private respondents for being impleaded as party respondents in

(5 of 6) [CW-3012/2022]

some of the writ petitions, has taken note of the fact that the

orders dated 17.08.2020 and 29.01.2021 have already been

complied with and pursuant to that, water outlets have already

been fixed.

This Court has also taken note of the fact that pursuant to

the orders dated 17.08.2020 and 29.01.2021, various outlets in

excess number were established and the size of the outlets was

also bigger then the sanctioned size. This Court has further taken

note of the report of the Committee, wherein it is reported that

the water outlets have been established in an illegal manner by

one Assistant Engineer. This Court has also taken note of the fact

that as in reply to the writ petitions, the respondents have not

disclosed the said fact, therefore, a direction was issued to the

Officer-in-Charge to file an additional affidavit explaining the fact

situation.

Today, an additional affidavit is filed on behalf of the Officer-

in-Charge in all the writ petitions, wherein it is specifically

mentioned that the water outlets have already been fixed as per

the orders dated 17.08.2020 and 29.01.2021. It is also mentioned

that the water outlets are excess in size, therefore, are drawing

more water depriving the agriculturists of tale end from the water

irrigation facilities. It has also specifically stated in the additional

affidavit that the Committee of irrigation officials has submitted its

report verifying that pursuant to the orders dated 17.08.2020 and

29.01.2021, water outlets have already been constructed but in

an illegal manner.

The Executive Engineer, present in person, has informed this

Court that the process of removing those illegal water outlets is

going on.

                                                                               (6 of 6)                       [CW-3012/2022]



                                         Taking   into      consideration         of     the         above     facts   and

circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the

petitioners got their water outlets constructed illegally, excess in

size as also excess in numbers pursuant to the orders dated

17.08.2020 and 29.01.2021, however, when it is realized that the

said water outlets have illegally been constructed, the process of

removing them is undertaken by the department and the

petitioners have approached this Court only with the intention to

save the illegal water outlets. If the petitioners are genuinely

aggrieved by the orders dated 17.8.2020 and 29.1.2021, they

would have approached this Court immediately without any delay.

Actually the petitioners got their water outlets constructed as per

the orders dated 17.8.2020 and 29.1.2021 but in an illegal