Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Manjeet Kaur vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 August, 2023

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8111/2023

Manjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Gurmel Singh, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 08, Village Chak Maharaj Ka, 2 Lnp, Udyog Vihar, Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Engineer Irrigation, North, Hanumangarh (Raj.).

2. Executive Engineer, Water Resources South Division, Sri-

Ganganagar (Raj.).

3. District Collector, Sri-Ganganagar (Raj.).

4. Assistant Director, Public Services, Collectorate, Sri-

Ganganagar.

                                                                             ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)                 :     Mr. B.S. Sandhu
For Respondent(s)                 :     Ms. Abhilasha Bora, AGC assisted by
                                        Ms. Saloni Malpani

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 02/08/2023 Pronounced on 16/08/2023

1. This writ petition has been preferred under Articles 226 &

227 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this petition for writ may kindly be allowed:

(i) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the letter dated 20.01.2023 (Annexure-2) as well as the order dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure-4) may kindly be declared illegal and without jurisdiction and be quashed and set aside; and

(ii) Further it is prayed that the action of the respondent authorities in sanctioning/demarcating the water course in the petitioner's land in Murabba No.35 (Revenue) Kila No.1, 10, 11, 20 & 21 may kindly be declared illegal and the respondents may kindly be restrained from constructing any

(D.B. SAW/754/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(2 of 6) [CW-8111/2023]

water course in these Kila's without following the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1955; and

(iii) Further it is prayed that any consequential entries made in the revenue records (Jamabandi) Annexure-5, in consequence to the letter dated 20.01.2023 (Annx.2) as well as the order dated 24.02.2023 (Annx.4) may kindly be declared nonest, illegal and be set aside; and

(iv) Any other appropriate order or relief which this Hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the humble petitioners."

2. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the petitioner's

agricultural land, according to the revenue records, is situated in

Chak 2 LNP, Murabba No. 35 Kila No. 1-25 and as per the

irrigation records, the same is in 6-D Choti, Murabba No. 60. In

order to construct a water course in the petitioner's land, a report

was obtained from the Executive Engineer (respondent no.2) on

20.01.2023 by one Jagnandan Singh in which the respondent no.2

stated that the water course in Kila No. 1, 10, 11, 20 and 21 (land

in question) was to be recorded in the revenue records.

2.1 Thereafter, the matter was forwarded to the Tehsildar,

Ganganagar by the respondent no.4 to make an entry in the

revenue records of the water course on 24.02.2023. In

consequence, the petitioner's land was ordered to be taken away,

two biswas each, without any compensation. The petitioner along

with other agriculturists of Chak filed an application stating therein

that there was no water course in the land in question, hence a

pucca water course should not be constructed. But since the

petitioner's grievance was not redressed, he has called into

question the impugned action on the part of the respondents, by

preferring the instant petition, claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

(D.B. SAW/754/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(3 of 6) [CW-8111/2023]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no water

course was running through the land in question and the same

was clear from the Jamabandi of Samwat Year 2072-2075 and

also from the impugned report of the respondent no.2 wherein it

was stated that the water course in Murabba no. 35 in kila no. 1,

10, 11, 20 and 21 is to be recorded in the revenue records; thus

only on the basis of the Chak plan, the respondents wished to

sanction a new water course.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the Executive

Engineer concerned was bound to undertake the proceedings

under Sections 21 to 28 of the Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1955

to set apart the petitioner's land for water course, instead merely

upon a report that was sought by Jagnandan Singh, the revenue

entries were made. In furtherance, the respondent no.4 had no

authority to pass orders for the revenue entries, and thus, the

impugned action on part of the respondents is not sustainable in

the eye of law.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that without any notice, two

biswas each of the petitioner's land was ordered to be taken away,

and that too, without any compensation to the petitioner in lieu of

the same.

3.3. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, placed

reliance on the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this

Hon'ble Court in the case of Jaspal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11844/2012, decided

on 18.01.2013).

(D.B. SAW/754/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(4 of 6) [CW-8111/2023]

4. On behalf of the respondents, it was however, submitted that

there was already an existing water course through the land of the

petitioner, as reflected in the letter issued by respondent no.4 on

11.01.2023 and the mauka report dated 13.07.2022, and further,

for the construction of an existing kutcha water course running

through several farmers' irrigated lands, there exists no provision

for providing any compensation to the concerned farmers for the

same.

4.1. It was further submitted that kutcha water courses were

already existing and running and developed in the Chak plan;

however, in the process of urbanization, these water courses are

made pucca in order to minimize the loss of water, during

transmission of water along the length of these water courses;

thus it is for the benefit of the farmers themselves, and

accordingly, they have to forgo a very small portion of land for

construction of such water courses.

4.2. It was also submitted that many times, irrigation records do

not match with the revenue records and whenever such

discrepancies are found the concerned authorities take

appropriate steps to correct the revenue records, as done in the

present case.

4.3. It was further submitted that the provisions contained in

Sections 21 to 28 of the Act of 1955 are applicable only when a

new water course is sanctioned; however, in the present case, no

new water course is being sanctioned, instead construction of a

kutcha water course is being done to convert it into a pucca water

course.

(D.B. SAW/754/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(5 of 6) [CW-8111/2023]

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar.

6. This Court observes that vide the report of respondent no.2

sought by one Jagnandan Singh, a water course running through

the land in question was to be recorded in the revenue records,

and further, the respondent no.4 passed an order to make an

entry of the water course in the revenue records.

7. This Court further observes that though the revenue records

do not match with the irrigation records, but as per the letter

dated 11.01.2023 issued by respondent no.4 and the mauka

report dated 13.07.2022, the water course was sanctioned in the

aforementioned killas of Muraba no. 35 in Chak Plan and the same

is in dilapidated state, and thus in need of construction. The said

mauka report, as available on record, is reproduced as hereunder:

" ekSdk fjiksVZ Jheku th pd 2 ,y ,u ih (6 Mh NksVh) ds% 35 ds fdyk u% 1] 10] 11] 20] 21 esa ekSds ij iDdk [kkyk cuk gqvk gS ijUrq ttZj voLFkk esa gS A ,oa eq.u. 43 ds fdyk u% 1] 10] 11] 20] 21 esa cuk gqvk [kkyk iDdk gS A fjiksVZ lwpukFkZ izLrqr gS A"

8. This Court also observes that the aforementioned provisions

of the Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1955 are not applicable in the

present case, as no new water course is being sanctioned, instead

an already existing water course is being reconstructed and being

made into a pucca water course, and thus, the question of inviting

objections or providing compensation for the same does not arise.

(D.B. SAW/754/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(6 of 6) [CW-8111/2023]

9. This Court further observes that every time such water

courses are reconstructed and a portion of the farmers' land is

taken for the aforesaid construction, and thus, any payment as

compensation for taking the land of the farmer(s) will be an