Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramkumar vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 December, 2023
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:43424]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18780/2023
Ramkumar S/o Shri Kashiram, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of
Ward No. 6, Vpo, Bhakhrawali, Tehsil Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Water
Resources Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Enginer Cum Appellate Authority,
Water Resources Department, Circle Hanumangarh.
3. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department,
Block I, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
4. Surjaram S/o Shri Ganesharam, By Caste Jat, Resident Of
Ward No. 6, VPO Bhakhranwali, Tehsil Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Godara, for
Mr. Sajjan Singh
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Akansha Choudhary, for
Ms. Abhilasha Bora, AGC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
13/12/2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
[2023:RJ-JD:43424] (2 of 6) [CW-18780/2023]
"(I). By appropriate writ, order or directions, the
impugned judgment dated 27.09.2023 (Annexure-5)
may kindly be set aside and consequence thereof the
impugned order dated 24.08.2023 (Annexure-4)
passed by the respondent Executive Engineer may
kindly be permitted to irrigate the land in question
from the sanctioned additional Naka in the interest of
Justice.
(II). Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble
Court deem just fit and proper be pased in favour of
the petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is having
agricultural land (command and uncommand) situated at Chak
No.44 STP, bearing Muraba No.25 and stone No.4/1/.0228,
4/2/.025, 5/1/.190, 5/2/.025, 6/1/.215, 6/2/.036, 15/1/.215,
15/2/.038/ and stone No.177/121, Muraba No.25 stone
No.6/1/.228, 6/2/.025, 7.1415/1/.228, 15/2/.025, 16/1/.228,
16/2/.025, 17, 24, stone No.177/122, Muraba No.26, Stone
No.1/1/.228, 1/2/.025, 2/1/.228, 2/2/.025, 3/1/.228, 3/2/.025,
4/1/.228, 4/2/.025, 7 to 13, stone No.178/121 Muraba No.14, Kila
No.11 total 5.819 hectare agricultural land.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Chak
No.1BKW Stone No.177/122 Kila Nos.1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and
13 total 9 bigha land is situated higher from the surface,
therefore, the irrigation facility is not available from the water
channel (Naka existing) as land in question, is also 2 feet higher
from the surface level. Learned counsel also submits that there is
a Digi at Kila No.5, the irrigation from the said Naka is closed
since last 20/25 years.
[2023:RJ-JD:43424] (3 of 6) [CW-18780/2023]
4. The petitioner preferred an application for sanctioning
additional Naka of Kila No.2 (Annexure-2) before the respondent
No.3-Executive Engineer, Water Resources Dept., Block I, Tehsil
and District Hanumangarh.
5. The respondent No.2- the Superintendent Engineer cum
Appellate Authority, Water Resources Department, Circle
Hanumangarh, was directed to make a site inspection for taking
further action.
6. The respondent No.3 - Executive Engineer, Water Resources
Department, Block I, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh after
considering the other relevant documents/report duly submitted
by the Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Block-I, Hanumangarh
passed an order dated 24.08.2023 (Annexure-4), while
permitting the sanction of additional Naka as demanded by the
petitioner.
7. The private respondent No.4 - Surjaram being aggrieved of
the order dated 27.09.2023 (Annexure-5) preferred an appeal
before the Superintendent Engineer, Water Resources, Circle,
Hanumangarh and the said appeal was allowed vide order dated
27.09.2023 (Annexure-5).
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent No.3- Executive Engineer, Water Resources
Department, Block I, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh, had rightly
passed the order (Annexure-4) dated 24.08.2023, while
sanctioning the water channel in favour of the petitioner but the
Appellate Authority without taking into consideration that the
existing sanctioned water was not suitable for the land in question
from the existing Naka, allowed the appeal.
[2023:RJ-JD:43424] (4 of 6) [CW-18780/2023]
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has preferred an application while submitting that the area of Kila
Nos.4 and 5 in his Muraba No.170/122 are having digi and dhani,
therefore, the proper irrigation could not be done in the
agriculture field and further the land of 9 bigha existed at higher
level i.e. about 2 feet height from Kila No.5, where the existing
Naka is situated between Kila Nos. 4 and 5 and, therefore, it was
not possible to get the proper facility for irrigating the agricultural
field.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that upon
perusal of the report of Assistant Engineer, Water Resource
(Annexure-3) dated 03.08.2016, it is reflected that 09 bigha land
existed at high level i.e. about 2 feet from the existing Naka.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that if the
proposed additional Naka is sanctioned in favour of the petitioner,
then, there would be no change in level of the water course and
there would be a slight change of about 2 cm. in the existing level
and, thus, this would not prejudice the rights of any other
agriculturalist.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent No.3- Executive Engineer, Water Resources
Department, Block I, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh, after due
consideration of the material available, sanctioned the additional
Naka vide order dated 24.08.2023 but the Appellate Authority had
committed illegality in considering the difference of height is 2 cm.
whereas the petitioner in the application mentioned it as 2 feet.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the difference in the height upon inspection has been found upto 2
[2023:RJ-JD:43424] (5 of 6) [CW-18780/2023]
cm. and the averments of the petitioner that the height is about 2
feet is absolutely false and the petitioner is already irrigating his
field from the existing Naka.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that a bare
look at decision dated 24.08.2023 (Annexure-4) reflects that the
petitioner is utilizing Kila No.4 for the purpose of irrigation of his
field and therefore, there is no requirement of our additional Naka
to be sanctioned.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
16. The decision dated 24.08.2023 (Annexure-4) passed by the
Executive Engineer reflects that the petitioner is irrigating his
fields from the existing Kila No.4 and further the decision of the
Appellate Authority on 27.09.2023 (Annexure-5) shows that the
difference in the height is about 2 cm. whereas the petitioner has
claimed it to be 2 feet. Thus, the reasons based on which the
petitioner is demanding additional Naka are baseless.
17. It is also seen that the Appellate Authority after due
consideration of the application, has passed the order dated
27.09.2023, while holding that as per the Chak Plan, the approved
additional Naka opens in the petitioner's own rakba and therefore,
when the Original Naka is opened in the rakba of the petitioner
and the level of the entire Murabba is almost the same, then in
such a condition it is unreasonable to approve an additional Naka.
18. Thus, as an upshot the above discussion as the level of
entire Murabba is almost the same and the sanctioned Naka opens
in the Murabba of the petitioner, there is no force in the petition
and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.
[2023:RJ-JD:43424] (6 of 6) [CW-18780/2023]
19. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand
dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
74-Ravi Khandelwal
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
