[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:5194]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1788/2026
1. Jagdish S/o Norang Ram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
Jhansal Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh At Present
President Water Consumer Distribution Committee (Chak
5-6 Ams, 2Chn, Ajsl, Bisc) Amar Singh Sub Branch,
Siddhmukh Canal Project, Water Resources Division,
Bhadra.
2. Dayaram S/o Nathuram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 202,
Village Ninan, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
3. Rakesh S/o Fateh Singh, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Ward
No. 12, 6 Jgw, Ninan, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
4. Surendra Kumar S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/
o Ward No. 8, Chhani Bari, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
5. Bhoop Singh S/o Hari Ram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Vpo
Chhanibari, 5 Chn, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
6. Dwarka Prasad S/o Mula Ram, Aged About 70 Years, R/o
Village Jhansal, 2Jsl, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
7. Ramniwas S/o Sahiram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Ward
No. 18 5 Chn, Channibari, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
8. Krishan Chander Sharma S/o Kheta Ram, Aged About 65
Years, R/o Near Panchayat Ghar, Ward No. 5 Chn,
Channibari, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
9. Subhash S/o Manful @ Fularam, Aged About 39 Years, R/
o 285, Channibari, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
10. Subhash S/o Shyochand, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Channibari, 5Chn, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
11. Subhash S/o Ghadsi Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Ward
No. 2, 6 Jgw, Ninan, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
12. Lalchand S/o Kishanlal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Sahuwala 9 Mrn, Sahuwala, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
13. Bhupsingh S/o Amichand, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
Sahuwala, 9 Mrn, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
14. Devi Lal S/o Rajeram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Ward No.
12, Ninan, 5Chn, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
15. Prabhu Dayal S/o Shyokaran, Aged About 69 Years, R/o
6B Jgw, Ninan, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 01:46:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:05:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5194] (2 of 7) [CW-1788/2026]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Irrigation, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Chief Engineer, Water Resource (North), Hanumangarh.
3. Executive Engineer, WR Bhakhra Siddhmukh Regulation
Division, Hanumangarh Junction.
4. Assistant Engineer, Water Resource Regulation Sub
Division III, Bhadra.
5. Jai Shree Shyam Enterprises, Through Its Proprietor
Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
Conclusion of Arguments &
Reserved on : 23/01/2026
Pronounced on : 31/01/2026
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the
following prayer :-
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this writ
petition may kindly be allowed :
a) By an appropriate writ order or direction order
may kindly be issued and order dated 04.11.2025
(Annexure-9) as well as technical sanction dated
24.07.2023 (Annexure-11), passed by the respondent may
kindly be quashed and set aside.
b) By an appropriate writ order or direction order
may kindly be issued and the respondent may kindly be
restraint to change the point of outlets of the Amarsingh
sub-minor branch of the Siddhmukh canal project.
c) That the any other relief, which this Hon'ble
Court deems fit, by which the petitioner may get full justice
may also be allowed. Costs of this writ petition may kindly
be awarded in favour of the petitioners."
2. The facts, in nutshell, as narrated in the present writ
petition, are that the petitioners are recorded Khatedar tenants of
the canal area project of Bhakhra Canal. In the said project, a
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 01:46:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5194] (3 of 7) [CW-1788/2026]
sub-minor namely Amar Singh Sub-minor Canal was established
being a minor of the Bhakhra Siddhmukh Regulation. There is one
outlet in every chak for providing water facility in Amar Singh
branch.
2.1 A bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.3204/2016 (Ladu Ram Vs. State & Ors.) were filed challenging
the resolutions of meeting dated 11.09.2015 and 20.10.2015,
wherein decision was taken to undertake the locking system /
arrangement of / on the APMs (Adjustable Proportional Module)
already installed, as per the sanctioned P-form.
2.2 On 15.09.2017 (Annexure-3), the Special Officer, Water
Resources Department, Jaipur permitted to amend the outlets of
Amar Singh branch for the chak mentioned therein.
2.3 During the pendency of the aforementioned bunch of writ
petitions, the technical sanction for carrying out the rectification of
outlets of AMS Sub Branch, NTR Disty and DPN Disty was granted
on 24.07.2023 (Annexure-11).
2.4 The said bunch of writ petitions came to be dismissed on
04.11.2025 and subsequent thereto, the work order was issued on
14.11.2025 (Annexure-9) for carrying out the rectification of
outlets of AMS Sub Branch, NTR Disty and DPN Disty wherein the
stipulated date for commencement and completion of work has
been mentioned as 21.11.2025 and 20.02.2026, respectively. On
the same day i.e. 14.11.2025, the financial sanction was also
granted qua the said work.
2.5 The petitioners being aggrieved of the work order, submitted
representations before Executive Engineer on 19.12.2025
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 01:46:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5194] (4 of 7) [CW-1788/2026]
(Annexure-10) requesting to defer the work till April 2026 as
disturbance in water supply would affect the agriculturists
adversely during mid-crop season considering that rabi crops have
already been sown.
2.6 The present writ has been filed on 22.01.2026 challenging
the technical sanction dated 24.07.2023 so also work order dated
14.11.2025 as the petitioners' representations were not acted
upon.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners being agriculturists would be gravely affected if tender
work is executed during mid-crop season as in absence of water,
the crops would be destroyed.
3.1 He further submitted that in the year 1998, similar decisions
were withdrawn after facing agitation from cultivators and order
dated 21.12.1998 (Annexure-13) was passed prohibiting removal
or alteration of outlets after providing ditch channels.
3.2 Further, vide order dated 13.04.2007 (Annexure-15), it was
clarified that prior to any change in outlets or chak boundaries
under the Bhakhra Project providing opportunity of hearing and
procuring consent of the cultivators was mandatory so also outlets
once fixed could not be altered without such consent.
3.3 The petitioners have neither been heard before granting
approval qua the rectification of outlets nor their representations
ventilating their grievance has been considered by the
respondents.
In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioners prayed that technical sanction so also financial sanction
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 01:46:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5194] (5 of 7) [CW-1788/2026]
granted qua the rectification of the impugned outlets may be
quashed and set aside. Alternatively, it was prayed that work may
not be executed during the mid-crop season i.e. till April 2026.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
material available on record.
5. It is to be noted that the decision to amend the outlets of the
Amar Singh Branch was approved vide communication dated
15.09.2017 (Annex.-3) for the Chak mentioned therein, however,
it appears that the said communication has never been
challenged.
5.1 It is further to be noted that in the present case, technical
sanction for carrying out rectification of outlets of the AMS Sub-
Branch, NTR Disty and DPN Disty was granted on 24.07.2023. The
present writ petition has been filed after a delay of almost 2½
years. Based on the said technical sanction, a work order was
issued on 14.11.2025 and as per the time schedule mentioned in
the work order, the work is to be completed between 21.11.2025
and 20.02.2026. Being aggrieved by the work order, the
petitioners submitted representations before the Executive
Engineer on 19.12.2025 seeking deferment of the work till April
2026 while stating that if the work order is allowed to be
executed, it would adversely affect the agriculturists as it is the
mid-crop season.
6. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is
that the work order should be deferred till the current crop season
is over.
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 01:46:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5194] (6 of 7) [CW-1788/2026]
6.1 Before appreciating the said submission, it would be
appropriate to take note of another fact, namely, that a bunch of
writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3204/2016 (Ladu
Ram Vs. State & Ors.) came to be filed challenging the resolutions
of the meetings dated 11.09.2015 and 20.10.2015, which came to
be dismissed vide order dated 04.11.2025.
6.2 Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred
before the Division Bench being DBSAW No. 38/2026 (Laduram
vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), which came to be dismissed on
16.01.2026.
6.3 The technical sanction dated 24.07.2023, which is challenged
in the present writ petition, is basically the implementation of the
decision dated 15.09.2017, which was based on the previous
communications.
7. This Court is not inclined to accept the submission with
regard to deferment of the work order on account of the ongoing
mid-crop season, for the reason that the technical sanction for the
said work was issued on 24.07.2023, however, the petitioners did
not choose to challenge the same at that point of time.
8. The work order was issued in November 2025, however,
even at that point of time, the petitioners did not choose to prefer
the writ petition. The present writ petition has been filed on
22.01.2026, when the time schedule of the work is at the fag end
and there appears to be no reason or any material on record to
indicate that the work has not been commenced. That being so,
when the work was to be executed within a period of about three
months and two months have already gone by, this Court, at this
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 01:46:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5194] (7 of 7) [CW-1788/2026]
stage, is not inclined to grant any indulgence in the present writ
petition.
9. Needless to observe that even if some crop is damaged on
account of the change in the outlet, the same would undoubtedly
be in the larger interest of the farmers.
10. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, no
case of indulgence is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
11. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
Rmathur/-
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 01:46:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
