Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:44092) on 8 October, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:44092]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9087/2019
Amar Singh S/o Shri Surjaram, Aged About 50 Years, Resident
Of Pakka Bhadwa, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2. Chief Engineer, Water Resources North Division,
Hanumangarh Sangam, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.
3. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division-I,
Hanumangarh, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.
4. Superintendent Engineer, Water Resource Circle, Tehsil
And District Hanumangarh.
5. Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Nandram, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Pakka Bhadwa, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.
6. Nandram S/o Shri Bhirajram, Aged About 75 Years, R/o
Pakka Bhadwa, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Motsara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi with
Mr. Rahul Mandan
Mr. Mayank Sharma for
Ms. Jaya Dadhich, AGC
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
08/10/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of
judgment and decree dated 17.05.2019 passed by Additional
District Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in Civil Appeal No.25/2019
(CIS No.25/2019) whereby the learned Appellate Court while
allowing the appeal, reversed the judgment and decree dated
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 01:55:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44092] (2 of 6) [CW-9087/2019]
03.04.2019 passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, Hanumangarh in Civil
Suit No.20/2015.
2. The facts are that respondent No.6 Nandram preferred an
application on 04.02.2009 before the competent authority for
sanction of an additional nakka (water course) in kila Nos.17 &18.
On the said application been filed, a report was called by the
Executive Engineer from the Assistant Engineer who in turn called
a report from the concerned Patwari.
3. The Patwari filed a 100% consent report specifying that none
of the agriculturists had objection to the said sanction. Acting
upon the consent report, the Assistant Engineer recommended for
the sanction of the additional nakka (water course).
4. However, while the above application was pending,
petitioner Amar Singh moved an application before the Chief
Engineer complaining of the illegal nakkas (water course) existing
in Chak 30 LLW. On the said application, the Chief Engineer, vide
order dated 26.03.2014 (Annexure-6), directed that no illegal
nakkas (water course) shall be sanctioned in Chak 30 LLW.
5. In view of the above order of the Chief Engineer, the
Executive Engineer proceeded on to reject the application of
respondent No.6 vide order dated 28.04.2015 (Annexure-4).
6. Appeal against the above order also stood rejected by the
Superintending Engineer vide order dated 09.06.2015 (Annexure-
5).
7. Aggrieved of both the above orders and also of the order
dated 26.03.2014 passed by the Chief Engineer, respondent Nos.5
& 6 preferred a Civil Suit for declaration and perpetual injunction.
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 01:55:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44092] (3 of 6) [CW-9087/2019]
8. Vide judgment and decree dated 03.04.2019, the learned
Civil Court proceeded on to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiffs
on the count that they failed to prove as to why the nakka (water
course) already sanctioned in their favour is not sufficient to
irrigate their land and further on the count that there was no
report filed by any technical specialist affirming the fact that the
lands of petitioner qua which he was praying for additional nakka
(water course), were below the level of other lands.
9. However, the appellate authority, vide judgment and decree
dated 17.05.2019, proceeded on to partly allow the appeal as filed
by respondent No.5 and, while declining to set aside order dated
26.03.2014 passed by the Chief Engineer, granted a decree of
perpetual injunction in favour of respondent No.5-plaintiff with a
direction to the respondents not to close/hinder the
existing/running nakka (water course) in kila Nos.17 & 18.
10. Aggrieved of the above judgment & decree dated
17.05.2019, the present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner (defendant No.5).
11. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Appellate
Court erred in reversing the order of the learned Trial Court which
was passed keeping into consideration the specific fact that the
plaintiffs/respondent Nos.5 & 6 failed to prove as to why they
were entitled for an additional nakka (water course). Counsel
submits that once the Appellate Court declined to set aside or
quash order dated 26.03.2014, no decree in favour of plaintiff-
respondent No.5 could have been granted.
12. Counsel further submits that besides one nakka (water
course) which had been sanctioned in favour of respondent No.5
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 01:55:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44092] (4 of 6) [CW-9087/2019]
and the additional nakka (water course) qua which the present
application was filed, respondent Nos.5 & 6 have many other
illegal nakkas (water course) too which is evident from the site
report Annexure-16.
13. Per contra counsel for respondent-State, while supporting
the order impugned, submitted that the same does not deserve
any interference.
14. Counsel for respondent Nos.5 & 6 submitted that even after
order dated 26.03.2014 passed by the Chief Engineer to the effect
that no additional nakka (water course) shall be sanctioned in
Chak 30 LLW, two additional nakkas (water course) in favour of
two agriculturists were sanctioned by the Executive Engineer.
Counsel substantiated his argument while relying upon the said
two sanction orders (Annexures-12 & 13) in favour of one
Sahabram and Badriprasad.
15. Counsel further submitted that the report as filed by the
Patwari was specifically to the effect that no agriculturist had any
objection to the sanction of the additional nakka (water course) in
favour of respondent No.6. The said consent letter was signed
even by the present petitioner and once having consented to the
same, the petitioner could not have subsequently filed any
objection. The same was clearly malafide.
16. Counsel further submitted that in view of the consent report
of all the agriculturists and the recommendation of the Water
Association, there was no reason whatsoever, to decline the
sanction in favour of respondent No.6.
17. Heard the counsels. Perused the record.
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 01:55:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44092] (5 of 6) [CW-9087/2019]
18. It is evident and undisputed on record that even after order
dated 26.03.2014 passed by the Chief Engineer, two additional
nakkas (water course) have been sanctioned in favour of one
Sahabram and one Badriprasad (Annexures -12 & 13). A bare
perusal of orders dated 16.10.2014 and 14.10.2015 issued in
favour of the said two persons reflects that the reason for sanction
in their favour is a consent by all the agriculturists and the
recommendation by the Water Association.
19. In view of the same, it is incomprehensible as to why
sanction in favour of respondent No.6 was declined when therein
too a consent of all the agriculturists and the recommendation of
the Water Association was there.
20. It is evident that the sanction in favour of respondent No.6
had been declined only on the count of order dated 26.03.2014.
21. This Court is of the clear opinion that the State authorities
cannot act arbitrarily or discriminatorily. When despite order dated
26.03.2014, additional nakkas (water course) had been
sanctioned in favour of certain other agriculturists, the same could
not have been declined in favour of respondent No.6 only on the
count of the said order when all the other facts remained similar.
22. It is further evident on record that the petitioner was not
even the affected party and had even consented at the first
instance as the consent letter admittedly bears his signature. It
was never the pleading of the petitioner before the Executive
Engineer or the Superintending Engineer that he would be affected
if the additional nakka (water course) is sanctioned in favour of
respondent No.6. Neither was it the case before the learned
Courts below. Further, it is evident that the petitioner is the
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 01:55:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44092] (6 of 6) [CW-9087/2019]
agriculturist of kila Nos.5 & 6 whereas the additional nakka (water
course) has been prayed by respondent No.6 qua kila Nos.17 &
18. Therefore too, the petitioner cannot be termed to be an
affected party.
23. In view of the aforesaid facts and observations, this Court
does not find any ground to interfere with judgment & decree
dated 17.05.2019 passed by the appellate authority. The writ
petition is hence dismissed.
24. However, this Court deems it apt to observe that the present
order shall not be deemed to create a right in favour of
respondent Nos.5 & 6 for continuance of any other illegal nakkas
(water course) operated by them. The respondent-State
authorities shall be under an obligation to take appropriate
proceedings against respondent Nos.5 & 6 if any other illegal
nakkas (water course) are found to be operated by them.
25. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
156-KashishS/-
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 01:55:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
