Balwant Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7830 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12948/2017

Balwant Ram S/o Gugnram, B/c Jat, Resident Of VPO 31-GG Tatarsar, Tehsil And District Sriganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, North, Hanumangarh.

2. Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Sri Ganganagar.

3. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, North Division, Sri Ganganagar

4. President, Water User Association, Tatarsar, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar.

5. Devi Lal S/o Shri Lekhram, B/c Jat, Resident Of Tatarsar, Tehsil And District Sriganganagar.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Rajesh Shah for Mr. Hemant Jain
For Respondent(s)          :     Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat



        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                      Order

25/05/2022

The matter is listed in the 'Orders' category, however, with

consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being

heard and decided finally today itself.

The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 05.09.2017 (Annex.10) passed by the Superintending

Engineer, Water Resources Department, North Division, Sri

Ganganagar, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the

petitioner against the order dated 22.03.2017 (Annex.7) passed

by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, North

(2 of 5) [CW-12948/2017]

Division, Sri Ganganagar rejecting the application of the petitioner

for sanction of additional Naka.

Facts of the case in nut shell are that the petitioner is having

an agricultural field in Murabba Nos.39 & 42 of Chak 31-GG and

presently, he is getting irrigation facility through Naka Outlet at

Killa No.21 of Murabba No.39 and since the same has not been

sanctioned, therefore, the petitioner preferred an application

dated 28.07.2014 before the Executive engineer, Water Resources

Department, Sri Ganganagar. The Executive Engineer, Sri

Ganganagar, after issuing notices to the concerned affected

persons, rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated

22.03.2017. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the

Superintending Engineer, Sri Ganganagar which too was rejected

vide judgment dated 05.09.2017. Being aggrieved against the

orders impugned, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ

petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Executive

Engineer (respondent No.3) rejected the application preferred by

the petitioner without appreciating the correct facts and the

reports submitted by the Assistant Engineer. Learned counsel

submits that water received in the agricultural fields of the

petitioner was inadequate and by a proposed Naka/additional

Naka, the petitioner is getting the supply of water for a very long

time and therefore, the proposed/additional Naka should be

sanctioned. Learned counsel further submits that after rejection of

the application by the Executive Engineer, Sri Ganganagar, the

petitioner preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer,

Sri Ganganagar who has also not considered the submissions

made before him and rejected the appeal vide judgment dated

(3 of 5) [CW-12948/2017]

05.09.2017. He further submits that since the petitioner is getting

water supply from proposed/additional Naka for a pretty long

time, the same should be sanctioned in his favour. He further

submits that the Executive Engineer, Sri Ganganagar has not

taken into consideration the report submitted before him and has

passed the order against the petitioner. He further submits that

no one has objected to the opening of proposed/additional Naka in

favour of the petitioner.

Per contra, Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat, learned counsel for the

respondents, while opposing the arguments of the learned counsel

for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is not entitled for the

proposed/additional Naka as he is getting water supply from the

same illegally for a very long time. She further submits that one

Devi Lal of Murabba No.43 filed objections for sanction of

proposed/additional Naka in favour of the petitioner. The Executive

Engineer has taken into consideration all the reports and the

submissions made by the petitioner and passed the order dated

23.02.2017 rejecting the application of the petitioner. She further

submits that the appellate authority i.e. the Superintending

Engineer, Sri Ganganagar, has also considered the submissions

made before him by the petitioner in appeal and he too rejected

the appeal by passing a detailed speaking order. She further

submits that no interference is warranted in the present case.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the orders passed by the Executive Engineer, Sri

Ganganagar and the Superintending Engineer, Sri Ganganagar as

well as the other relevant record of the case.

The fact is that the petitioner is getting irrigation facility from

the Naka allotted to him and in addition, he is getting the water

(4 of 5) [CW-12948/2017]

supply from proposed/additional Naka for a pretty long time. This

proposed/additional Naka was never sanctioned in favour of the

petitioner and he is getting the water supply from the same

illegally. The Executive Engineer, Sri Ganganagar after having

taken into consideration all technical reports found that the

petitioner is getting adequate water supply from the Naka allotted

to him, therefore, he is not entitled for proposed/additional Naka

and thus, the Executive Engineer rightly rejected the application

by a reasoned order.

The Superintending Engineer, Sri Ganganagar after having

dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner, also rejected

the appeal of the petitioner by a detailed and speaking order. It is

also noted by this Court that sanction of a Naka for supply of

water to the agriculturists is based upon the technical reports and

the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer are

experts of the subject for the distribution of water supply to the

agricultural fields of the agriculturists in the area including the

petitioner. Thus, the orders passed by the Executive Engineer, Sri

Ganganagar and the Superintending Engineer, Sri Ganganagar are

normally not required to be interfered with unless the same on the

face of it, are perverse and de hors the law.

In the present case, since the Executive Engineer, Sri

Ganganagar passed the order after giving reasonable opportunity

to the petitioner and after taking into consideration the technical

reports, has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner is

not entitled for the proposed/additional Naka for the supply of the

water. No error has been committed by the Superintending

Engineer, Sri Ganganagar also while rejecting the appeal of the

petitioner.

(5 of 5) [CW-12948/2017]

In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is

devoid of any force, the same is hereby dismissed.

Stay application as well as other pending applications, if any,

shall stand disposed of.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 44-/Anil Arora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)