[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mamta vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 28 April, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:20218]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13477/2023
1. Mamta D/o Ram Singh, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of
Chak 24 P.d., Tehsil Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
2. Ram Singh S/o Bhagirath, Aged About 62 Years, Resident
Of Chak 24 P.d., Tehsil Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer
(Raj.).
3. Manoj Bishnoi S/o Ram Singh Bishnoi, Aged About 36
Years, Resident Of Chak 24 P.d., Tehsil Mohangarh,
District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
4. Sarojna W/o Ram Singh, Aged About 58 Years, Resident
Of Chak 24 P.d., Tehsil Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer
(Raj.).
5. Nameeta W/o Sanjay Bishnoi, Aged About 44 Years,
Resident Of Chak Chak 24 P.d., Tehsil Mohangarh, District
Jaisalmer (Raj.), At Present 44 K-Block, Sriganganagar
(Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The
Government, Department Of Water Resources,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Chief Engineer, I.g.n.p., Jaisalmer.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Phase-Ii, Circle-Iii, I.g.n.p.
Jaisalmer.
4. The Executive Engineer, 23Rd Division, I.g.n.p.
Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kumar Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
28/04/2026
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:45:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20218] (2 of 4) [CW-13477/2023]
By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioners have
prayed for the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed
that this writ petition may kindly be allowed:
A] By an appropriate writ order or direction, the
respondents may kindly be restrained from making any
change in the outlet (APM) of the petitioners chak 24 P.D.
B] By an or direction, the appropriate writ order
respondents may kindly be directed to continue the
outlet/P-form of chak 24 P.D. as installed and approved
vide Annexure - 2.
C] Further the communication dated 31.07.23 (Annexure -
may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set
aside. ..."
2. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the order dated
31.07.2023 (Annexure-04) issued from the office of the Assistant
Engineer, Sub-Division-III, 23rd Division, IGNP, Mohangarh,
whereby the Chairman of the Water Users Association has been
informed that repair work of APM machines installed at the
locations mentioned in the said order is to be undertaken.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
underlying object of the impugned order dated 31.07.2023 is to
effect a change in the size of the outlet and the quantity of water
supplied to the petitioners. It was contended that such a change in
the size of the outlet cannot be undertaken without prior approval
of the State Government, as mandated under Rule 11(2) of the
Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955. In support of his
submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment
passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in "Randheer Singh &
Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors." passed in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 9129/2015 decided on 22.11.2016.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
opposed the aforesaid submissions. He submitted that the present
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:45:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20218] (3 of 4) [CW-13477/2023]
writ petition is wholly misconceived and has been filed merely on
the basis of conjectures and surmises that the impugned action
would result in reduction of water supply to the petitioners.
5. Drawing the attention of the Court to various documents,
including the impugned order, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the language of the order clearly indicates that the
respondents intend only to repair the APM machines installed to
regulate the water supply to the petitioners through their
distributors. He further submitted that there is nothing on record
to suggest that the respondents propose to alter the size, nature,
or location of the outlets, or that they are installing APM machines
for the first time. It was also submitted that due to damaged or
tampered machines, water supply is presently being disturbed,
resulting in certain tenants/agriculturists receiving water in excess
of the sanctioned supply. Learned counsel emphasized that repair/
rectification of APM machines would, in fact, benefit the petitioners
by ensuring supply of water in accordance with the sanctioned P-
form.
6. Heard.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court
prima facie finds that the present writ petition is wholly
misconceived. There is no material on record to indicate that the
respondents are effecting any change in the size, nature, or
location of the water outlets of the petitioners. The action initiated
by the respondents for repair of already installed APM machines,
which are meant to regulate the water supply to
agriculturists/tenants, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be
termed illegal or arbitrary.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:45:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20218] (4 of 4) [CW-13477/2023]
It is pertinent to note that learned counsel for the
respondents has made a specific statement before this Court that
repair of the APM machines will not adversely affect the water
supply to the petitioners, and that they shall continue to receive
water as per the sanctioned entitlement. The action undertaken by
the respondents, in good faith and with the objective of regulating
irrigation supply, does not warrant interference by this Court
merely on the basis of apprehensions expressed by the
petitioners, which are unsupported by any cogent material.
8. In the result, the present writ petition as well as the stay
application stands dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
107-divya/-
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:45:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
