Jagdev Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:6607)
2025 Latest Caselaw 6391 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6391 Raj
Judgement Date : 3 February, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jagdev Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:6607) on 3 February, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:6607]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14047/2024

Harbhajan Singh S/o Dara Singh, aged about 66 Years, R/o Chak 3D Badi, Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Superintending Engineer, Circle Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. Secretary,

2. Divisional Irrigation Officer Cum Executive Engineer, Water Resource, Department, North Division, Sri Ganganagar.

3. Jagdev Singh S/o Harcharan Singh, R/o Chak 3D Badi, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

4. Mahal Singh S/o Sajjan Singh, R/o Chak 3D Badi, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1976/2024 Jagdev Singh S/o Shri Harcharan Singh, aged about 39 Years, R/o Chak 3D Badi, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through The Superintending Engineer, Circle Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

2. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, North Division, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

3. Assistant Engineer III, Water Resources Department, North Sub-Division, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

4. Harbhajan Singh S/o Dara Singh, R/o Chak 3D Badi, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Pankaj Sharma
For Respondent(s)            :     Dr. Milap Chopra
                                   Mr. Kanishq Singhvi

                                        Order

03/02/2025

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14047/2024:

1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following

prayers:

[2025:RJ-JD:6607] (2 of 4) [CW-14047/2024]

"I. The judgment / order dated 28.12.20224 as passed by respondent no.1 in appeal no.94/2023 (Harbhajan Singh & Anr. vs. State of Raj. &Ors.) and the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by Respondent no.2 upon the application preferred by respondent no. 3.may kindly be set-aside and quashed.

II. The application preferred by the present Respondent no.3 (Annex.-3) may kindly be rejected in toto.

III. The respondents may kindly be directed to restore the irrigation supply from the constructed water course up to mid of Kila no.5 of Murabbano.44 and further continue water supply through the diagonallyconstructed water course for the purpose of connecting to the more than 50-years-oldkatchawater course.

IV. The respondents may kindly be directed to close the nakai.e. the point created by breaking the pakka water course in the mid of kila no.1 Murabba no.43. V. Any other relief with this Hon'ble Court deems fit may also kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner."

2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that consensually a

pakka watercourse was built by the Command Area Development

Department and part of the pakka watercourse was built by the

farmers. The respondent authorities at the behest of the private

respondent herein have further extended the watercourse on the

premise that the existing watercourse has been hampering the

movement of the agricultural implements which is beyond the

powers of the CAD Department and that has to be decided by the

revenue authorities.

3. Learned counsel for the private respondent has contended

that the grievance before the authorities was only whether the

watercourse that has been existing are within the sanction plan.

The private respondent's claim is that he sought the irrigation

authorities to create the watercourse as per the sanction plan.

According to him, the watercourse that was created earlier was

causing hindrance to the drawing of water to his field, therefore,

[2025:RJ-JD:6607] (3 of 4) [CW-14047/2024]

subsequently, the extension of watercourse was in terms of the

sanction plan.

4. Heard both the sides.

5. The impugned order passed by the Executive Engineer as

well as the Superintending Engineer has not specifically given a

finding whether the previous existing watercourse has impacted

the water drawing capacity of the private respondent. The

grievance of the petitioner is that by virtue of extension of

watercourse, the water drawing capacity of water of the private

respondent has diminished and, therefore, this issue has to be

adjudicated by the original authority.

6. In light of such consensual agreement between the parties,

the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

i. The impugned order passed by the Executive Engineer

and Superintending Engineer is set aside and the matter is

remanded back to the Executive Engineer.

ii. The Executive Engineer is directed to decide whether

the existing watercourse, if it was not extended, would

diminish the water drawing capacity of the private

respondent and respondent authorities shall also see that the

watercourse must be taking into consideration the sanction

plan and at the same time the existing way if any held by

the petitioner shall not be disturbed by virtue of any

implementation the sanction plan.

iii. Till such decision is taken, the existing status quo with

regard to watercourse shall not be disturbed.

iv. The authorities shall decide the grievance within a

reasonable time which shall not be more than two months.

[2025:RJ-JD:6607] (4 of 4) [CW-14047/2024]

v. Any observation made in the present order shall not

come in the way of deciding the issue.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1976/2024:

In light of the order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

14047/2024, the present writ petition is disposed of. The

impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back.