Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 215 (RAJ)

Lal Chand v. State.

2009-01-23

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - These two writ petitions involving similar facts and the same questions have been considered together and are taken up for disposal by this common order. 2. Essential submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that their agricultural land situated at Chak 4 RP had been getting irrigation water supply from the existing outlet for the last 25 years but the respondents have prepared a new chak plan and their land has been proposed to be transferred to Chak 6 RP thereby changing the outlet for their irrigation water supply; and such a change is likely to adversely affect the water supply to the agriculture fields of the petitioners. It is submitted that before proposing such transfer of their land to another Chak, no notice or opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioners. It has also been submitted that2 even the representation as made by the petitioner has not been given due consideration. 3. It is submitted by the respondents that the land in question was transferred from Chak 4 RP to Chak 6 RP keeping in mind the norms of CAD and by doing so, the facility of irrigation to the land of the petitioners would not be adversely affected. It is also stated that earlier the petitioners were getting irrigation facility through kuchcha watercourse but now a pucca watercourse has been laid. According to the respondents, transfer of the land in question from one Chak to another was recommended by the Executive Engineer and as per his recommendation, the transfer was approved by the Superintending Engineer. The private respondent No.4 has filed a separate reply contending that the petitioners never used the irrigation facility through the outlet of Chak 4 RP and, therefore, they have no right to claim irrigation facilities from the said outlet. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, it appears that before changing the source of water facility by placing the land of the petitioners from Chak 4 RP to Chak 6 RP, they were not extended any opportunity of hearing; and even the representations made by the petitioners seem to have gone unattended. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, it appears that before changing the source of water facility by placing the land of the petitioners from Chak 4 RP to Chak 6 RP, they were not extended any opportunity of hearing; and even the representations made by the petitioners seem to have gone unattended. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, when admittedly there would be some change in relation to the irrigation facilities from one outlet to another and when the petitioners had been stating the grievance of adverse effect, it was desirable that the concerned Authority had heard the petitioners at least on their representation and taken a considered decision. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances of the case, without going into any other question, it appears appropriate that the Authority concerned be directed to take a decision in the matter after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and, for that matter, to the respondent No.4 also, who was permitted to join these writ petitions after allowing his application for impleadment, and other concerned persons desirous of being heard or likely to be affected. It is noticed that in CWP No. 1621/2006, while issuing notice on 03.04.2006, this Court directed that status quo as existing on that date in relation to the irrigation facilities of the land of the petitioner shall be maintained. It appears appropriate that the same position should continue until the Authority concerned takes a final decision on the representation of the petitioners. 6. In view of the aforesaid, these writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. While continuing with the position as hitherto continuing and keeping the entire matter open, the parties are directed to appear before the Executive Engineer concerned on 26.02.2009. The petitioners may make another representation stating all their submissions and it shall also be permissible for the respondent No.4 to make his submissions. It shall be expected of the Executive Engineer to take a considered decision after hearing the petitioners, the respondent No. 4, and other concerned persons desirous of being heard or likely to be affected, as early as possible, preferably within 60 days of the aforesaid date of appearance of the parties before him. There shall be no order as to costs of these petitions.Writ Petition Allowed. *******