Ramandeep Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3000 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3000 Raj
Judgement Date : 13 April, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ramandeep Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 April, 2023

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2023/RJJD/009975]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17585/2018

1. Ramandeep Singh S/o Shri Angrej Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Village Banwali, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar

2. Bajir Singh S/o Shri Mewa Singh,, Aged About 45 Years, Village Banwali, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar

3. Jagmeet Singh S/o Shri Roshan Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Village Banwali, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar

4. Angrej Singh S/o Shri Bhag Singh,, Aged About 55 Years, Village Banwali, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar

5. Kulwant Singh S/o Shri Suba Singh,, Aged About 50 Years, Village Banwali, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar

6. Janta Singh @ Gurjant Singh S/o Shri Angrej Singh,, Aged About 56 Years, Village Banwali, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources, Circle Hanumangarh

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

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Preet Kamal Sidhu For Respondent(s) : Ms. Saloni Malpani for Ms. Abhilasha Bora

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

13/04/2023

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely

covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4968/2020 (Krishan Lal & Ors V/

s The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 22.02.2021.

[2023/RJJD/009975] (2 of 3) [CW-17585/2018]

Learned counsel for the respondents is in agreement with

the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

The said judgment, as relied upon by both the learned

counsel, reads as follows :-

"1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition claiming the following relief:

"A/ By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 20.02.2020 Annexure P/2 passed by the respondent no.3 along with the P-Form attached to it may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside."

3. 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 20.02.2020, are being give 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.

4. 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. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9129/2015, decided on 22.11.2016).

5. 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.

6. 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 20.02.2020.

[2023/RJJD/009975] (3 of 3) [CW-17585/2018]

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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 20.02.2020. The stay application as well as all pending applications stand disposed of accordingly."