Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1530 (RAJ)

Sarjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2015-08-17

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders dated 03.06.2015 passed by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Division - I, Hanumangarh and order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Hanumangarh, whereby the application filed by the respondent No.4 seeking consolidation of water turn has been accepted and the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed respectively. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-Executive Engineer vide order dated 03.06.2015 based on a prayer made by the respondent No.4 without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and/or any other person, has passed the order for consolidation of water turn. It is submitted that the said passing of the order is in violation of Rule 11(3) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955. It is further submitted that the consolidation of the respondent's water turn would result in petitioner being affected, however the said aspect has not at all been considered by the Executive Engineer and, therefore, the order passed cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that the Appellate Authority based on the affidavit filed by respondent, which was obtained subsequent to the passing of the order of the Executive Engineer, has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and has rejected the petitioner's objections, which also cannot be sustained. With reference to the Circular (Annex.-5), learned counsel made submissions regarding the provisions for consolidation as well the point of time when such action can be taken. It was prayed that both the orders passed by the authorities cannot be sustained. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 vehemently submitted that the orders passed by the authorities below do not call for any interference, inasmuch as, the petitioner is not at all affected by passing of the order in favour of the respondent. It is submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the Executive Engineer, the water turn has already been fixed and in fact in case any interference is made at this stage, the same would be in the mid crop season and not otherwise. It is submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the Executive Engineer, the water turn has already been fixed and in fact in case any interference is made at this stage, the same would be in the mid crop season and not otherwise. With reference to the affidavit (Annex.-R4/1) given by the other cultivators of the Chak, it is submitted that except for the petitioner, no one has any objection to the consolidation of the respondent's water turn and, therefore, the orders passed by both the authorities below do not call for any interference. 4. Regarding the submission of not hearing the petitioner, it was submitted that the Superintending Engineer has after hearing the petitioner came to the same conclusion as was reached by the Executive Engineer and, therefore, the order does not call for any interference. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 6. From the order dated 03.06.2015 passed by the Executive Engineer (Annex.-P/2), it is apparent that while passing the said order, none of the agriculturist of the Chak were provided any opportunity of hearing and the application filed by the respondent was accepted and his water turn was consolidated. When the appeal was filed by the petitioner raising grievance in this regard, the Superintending Engineer by his impugned order dated 30.06.2015 based on the affidavit given by other agriculturists came to the conclusion that the objection raised by the petitioner has no substance. 7. However, it is trite law that any post decisional hearing and/or justification provided for violating the principle of natural justice on account of the result of such an order, cannot be a substitute for grant of opportunity of hearing at the time of passing of the original order. The Executive Engineer was bound to call for objections from other agriculturists of the Chak and in absence of such an opportunity to the other agriculturists, the Executive Engineer was not justified in passing the order dated 03.06.2015 (Annex.-P/2). 8. The Superintending Engineer has not dealt with the said aspect as raised by the petitioner pertaining to the Circular (Annex.-5) and the stipulations indicated therein. 9. In view of the above, the orders passed by Executive Engineer dated 03.06.2015 and that of Superintending Engineer dated 30.06.2015 cannot be sustained, both the orders are set aside. 10. 8. The Superintending Engineer has not dealt with the said aspect as raised by the petitioner pertaining to the Circular (Annex.-5) and the stipulations indicated therein. 9. In view of the above, the orders passed by Executive Engineer dated 03.06.2015 and that of Superintending Engineer dated 30.06.2015 cannot be sustained, both the orders are set aside. 10. The matter is reminded back to the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Division - I, Hanumangarh to decide the matter afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the concerned agriculturists of the Chak. The Executive Engineer would decide the matter within a period of three weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed before him. 11. Till such time that the Executive Engineer decides the matter afresh, status quo as it exists today regarding the water turn shall be maintained by the parties. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Writ petition disposed of as above.