Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sukhmahendra Singh @ Sukhvinder Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:41624) on 1 December, 2023
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:41624]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8125/2022
1. Sukhmahendra Singh @ Sukhvinder Singh S/o Sh. Baldev
Singh, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of - Chak 23 Ps-A,
Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar (Raj.).
2. Daljeet Singh S/o Sh. Baldev Singh, Aged About 55 Years,
Resident Of - Chak 23 Ps-A, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District
Sriganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Engineer,
Irrigation, North, Hanumangarh.
2. Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Sri-
Ganganagar.
3. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division
Raisinghnagar, District Sri-Ganganagar.
4. Chairman, Water Users Association, Chak 23 Ps (A),
Tehsil - Raisinghnagar, District - Sri-Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Baljinder Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG with
Mr. Piyush Bhandari
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
01/12/2023
1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following
reliefs:
"(i) By an appropriate writ, order of direction the
respondents may be restrained from changing or
altering the existing outlet of the petitioner's chak 23
P.S.(A).
[2023:RJ-JD:41624] (2 of 4) [CW-8125/2022]
(ii) Further the respondents may be retrained from
making any change and alteration in the outlet of
petitioner;s chak 23 P.S.(A) and without giving
opportunity of hearing and conducting fresh survey &
compying with the procedure prescribed under the
law, and fresh sanction from the state government.
(iii) That further the respondent may be restrained
from reducing the water turn of the petitioners land
and the irrigation facilities being received by them
may be continued, and such reduction by the
respondent may declared illegal and be set aside."
2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the
controversy involved herein is covered by the order passed by this
Court in Krishan Lal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4968/2020, decided on
22.02.2021), which reads as under:
"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
[2023:RJ-JD:41624] (3 of 4) [CW-8125/2022]
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.
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
[2023:RJ-JD:41624] (4 of 4) [CW-8125/2022]
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."
3. In light of the aforequoted order, 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 Rajasthan Irrigation and
Drainage Rules, 1955, before giving effect to the impugned order
dated 10.08.2021. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
6-chhavi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
