Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1479 (RAJ)

Gurlal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-05-13

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard and decided today itself. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ order or directions:- (I) The impugned order dated 18.10.2018 (Annex.P/7) passed by the respondent No. 2 may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits and the order dated 24.08.2018 i.e. annex P/6 passed by the respondent No. 3 may kindly be ordered to be restored." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners agriculture land measuring 30 bighas is situated in Chak 7 AMP in the irrigation record and Chak 15 BJP as per revenue record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the legal position is that as per standing order No. 15 dated 1.2.1974, the benefit of Nikal is to be given to the land situated at the tail of the main water course. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per standing order No. 15, the benefit of Nikal is to be given to the longest branch of the water course and since the petitioner is at tail, therefore, the benefit of Nikal is to be given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No. 4 has enjoyed the Nikal for the last so many years and since in the light of present standing order, the petitioner himself was to be given the benefit of Nikal and, therefore, he moved appropriate application before the Executive Engineer and an order was passed in his favour on 24.8.2018 in which it was held that since the petitioner was at tail, therefore, the benefit of Nikal be given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order dated 28.4.2018 was challenged by the respondent No. 4 by filing appeal before the Superintending Engineer which was allowed by order dated 18.10.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also shown this Court the report Annex.P/3 as per which the respondent No. 4s land is not at the tail of the water course as it is blocked and thus, by no means of factual matrix, the respondent No. 4 can be said to be at the tail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also shown this Court the report Annex.P/3 as per which the respondent No. 4s land is not at the tail of the water course as it is blocked and thus, by no means of factual matrix, the respondent No. 4 can be said to be at the tail. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that the impugned order of the Superintending Engineer is unlawful as it is contrary to the standing order. 4. Learned counsel for the State respondents submits the order of Superintending Engineer is absolutely reasoned order and has been passed in accordance with law. Since the petitioner is at 13th Murabba and the respondent No. 4 is in 15th Murabba, therefore, admittedly the respondent No. 4 is at tail and was entitled for the benefit of Nikal as per the Standing Order. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the order passed by the Superintending Engineer is absolutely justified and the Executive Engineer passed the order contrary to the Standing Order. The respondent No. 4 is at 15th Murabba i.e. at the tail, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of Nikal. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner is at 13th Murabba and the respondent No. 4 is in 15th Murabba. This Court finds that the State has taken a categtoric stand that as per the Standing Order, the benefit of Nikal is to be given to the person who is at the tail of the water course and admittedly the State has held that the respondent No. 4 is at tail and is entitled for the benefit of Nikal as per the Standing Order. In light of the categoric stand taken by the State as well as the order passed by the Superintending Engineer, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent No. 4 is at tail of the longest water course and is entitled for the benefit of Nikal as per the Standing Order. Thus, no interference is called for in the lawful order passed by the Superintending Engineer dated 18.10.2018. 7. In light of above discussion, the present writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. 8. Stay Petition No. 16721/2018 and application No. 1/2019 also stand disposed of accordingly.