Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1176 (RAJ)

Lekhram v. State of Rajasthan

2019-04-22

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs: "(i) An appropriate writ, direction or order be issued quashing the impugned order dated 11.12.2018 (Annex. 7) passed by the Superintending Engineer Water Resources Circle, Hanumangarh in appeal No. 58/2018. (ii) Any other appropriate writ or direction necessary for justice be issued. (iii) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in the favour of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court are that petitioner No. 1 is the Khatedar tenant of the land of Stone/Kila No. 24/220, which is situated at the tail of Chak 34 LLW and other petitioners are also having the land situated at the tail of the said Chak. The existing Naka is there at Kila No. 25 from which, respondent No. 5 was receiving the water. However, respondent No. 5 moved an application before the Executive Engineer for sanctioning of an alternate Naka in between Kila No. 16 to 25 of Murabba No. 23/225 of Chak 34 LLW, so as to have more convenience in the irrigation due to the cremation ground causing inconvenience to the irrigation for the respondent No. 5. 3. The aforementioned application was decided by the Executive Engineer, in which, it was stated that the necessary arrangements have been made to ensure proper supply of water for the land of Murabba No. 23/225. The technical report was called and a report for sanctioning of Naka was given on 23.03.2018. The Executive Engineer further inspected the site and came to the conclusion that Murabba No. 23/225 Pakka water course has been constructed by the CAD Department and there was an internal Aad, which was available for providing irrigation facility to the land of respondent No. 5, and in this way, there was no difficulty to the respondent No. 5 in receiving the water supply for the said land, as depicted in the order dated 13.08.2018. Thereafter, against the order dated 13.08.2018, respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer being Appeal No. 58/2018, whereupon vide order dated 11.12.2018, the Superintending Engineer has held that if an alternate Naka is constructed at Kila No. 16 to 25, then it shall be more convenient to the respondent No. 5 to have the irrigation. 4. Thereafter, against the order dated 13.08.2018, respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer being Appeal No. 58/2018, whereupon vide order dated 11.12.2018, the Superintending Engineer has held that if an alternate Naka is constructed at Kila No. 16 to 25, then it shall be more convenient to the respondent No. 5 to have the irrigation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are having stake of irrigation in Kila No. 25, and thus, if any water supply is reduced in Kila No. 25 and shifted to Kila No. 16, then the same shall be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that some of the petitioners are at the tail and others are receiving irrigation from Kila No. 25 and any Naka at Kila No. 16 would prejudice their water supply and shall also cause extraordinary advantage to respondent No. 5. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that since the irrigation in the field of respondent No. 5 is being hampered by the cremation ground, therefore, it shall be in the interest of irrigation to have the same water with less wastage through Kila No. 16, instead of Kila No. 25, which would be detrimental to his cause of irrigation. 7. Learned Additional Government Counsel submits that there shall be no prejudice to either of the parties, if the order of the Superintending Engineer is brought into operation. Learned Additional Government Counsel further submits that even if Naka at Kila No. 16 is constructed, then also the same shall not prejudice any water arrangement at Kila No. 25 because there shall be proportionate distribution of water between both the Kilas. 8. Learned Additional Government Counsel also submits that the petitioners shall be provided irrigation facility through alternate Naka, but the quantity of water shall remain the same and the distribution of water to the extent of respondent No. 5 shall be shifted from Kila No. 25 to Kila No. 16 only as an alternative arrangement, whereas rest of the water shall continue to be drawn from Kila No. 25. 9. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the clear stand taken by the learned Additional Government Counsel almost resolves the issue, as the stand of the learned Additional Government Counsel makes it clear that there shall be no prejudice to the water facility being drawn by the petitioners from Kila No. 25 at the tail as it will be the same as sanctioned. 10. The assurance given by learned Additional Government Counsel is to the effect that there will be no excess supply of water to the respondent No. 5 and alternate Naka will be constructed at Kila No. 16 to give his share of water and no additional share will be given, which could prejudice any of the parties. 11. In light of the categorical assurance given by learned Additional Government Counsel, this Court finds that the order passed by Superintending Engineer does not require any interference. However, this Court makes it clear that the respondent No. 5 with Naka at Kila No. 16 shall receive the same proportionate share, that he was entitled to receive from Kila No. 25, and no excess water share shall be given to him by making this arrangement, whether it is an alternative arrangement or an additional arrangement. 12. This Court also directs that the assurances given by learned Additional Government Counsel may be acted upon, and if the petitioners, at any stage at tail or at Naka No. 25, are receiving any water lawfully, then such lawful receiving of water shall not be prejudiced and their proportionate share, already demarcated, shall be available for them. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Stay petition No. 1208/2019 also stands disposed of accordingly.