Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 651 (RAJ)

Guman Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2020-09-09

ARUN BHANSALI

body2020
ORDER 1. These appeals are directed against the judgments and decrees dated 6.12.2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Lunkaransar, District Bikaner, and judgments and decrees dated 1.11.2019 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Bikaner, whereby, the suits and the appeals filed by the appellants have been dismissed. 2. The appellants filed suits for permanent injunction against the respondents inter alia with the averments that the plaintiffs were getting irrigation facilities from the respondents for over 20 years. As notice has been issued seeking discontinuance of irrigation facilities, they be restrained from discontinuation of the irrigation facilities to the plaintiffs. 3. A written statement was filed by the respondent - State inter alia indicating that the land of the appellants is not command land. Earlier, temporary irrigation facilities were provided as the command area was not fully allotted and surplus water available, however, as now the command area has been allotted, the irrigation facilities cannot be provided to the uncommand land and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief. Further indication was made that the order, by which, the plaintiffs were being provided irrigation facilities i.e. 7.6.1999, has been cancelled and, therefore, the suits were liable to be dismissed. 4. The trial court framed four issues. On behalf of the plaintiffs, three witnesses were examined and 17 documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants, no oral or documentary evidence was produced. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the central issue in the suits was whether the land of the plaintiffs was command / uncommand and as the plaintiffs failed to produce jamabandi indicating the land as command and the document Exhibit A/2 produced clearly indicated that the land was uncommand, the plaintiffs were not entitled for any relief and consequently, dismissed the suits. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed first appeals. 7. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, also came to the same conclusion that the land in question was not command land and, therefore, no direction could be issued for providing irrigation facilities and consequently, dismissed the appeals. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that both the courts below were not justified in dismissing the suits / appeals, inasmuch as, admittedly the appellants were getting the irrigation facilities since the year 1999 and there was no reason for the respondents to discontinue the irrigation facilities. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that both the courts below were not justified in dismissing the suits / appeals, inasmuch as, admittedly the appellants were getting the irrigation facilities since the year 1999 and there was no reason for the respondents to discontinue the irrigation facilities. 9. Submissions were made that merely because the jamabandi was not filed, could not be the reason for dismissing the suits filed by the plaintiffs, inasmuch as, sufficient material was available on record to indicate that the appellants' land was getting irrigation facilities and, therefore, the judgments impugned give rise to substantial question of law. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that both the courts below have concurrently found that the land in question is not command land and that unless the land is command, there is no right of the agriculturists to seek irrigation facilities. Merely because at some point of time irrigation facilities were provided to uncommand land, cannot be a reason for the appellants to seek injunction in this regard and, therefore, the judgments impugned don't call for any interference and the appeals filed by the appellants deserve dismissal. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. The appellants had made a sweeping statement that they were getting the irrigation facilities for over 20 years, however, the material, which was produced before the trial court, in Exhibit A/2 an order dated 7.6.1999 was passed by the Superintending Engineer to take charges from the agriculturists and provide them irrigation facilities. In the said document itself, a clear indication has been made that the Superintending Engineer himself by his order dated 27.9.1999 had canceled the order dated 7.6.1999. 13. Once the order dated 7.6.1999 was canceled, whatever right the appellants / plaintiffs had to get the irrigation facilities, came to an end. Merely because despite passing of the order canceling the order dated 7.6.1999, the appellants continued to get the irrigation facilities till the year 2012 and notice was issued to them proposing to discontinue the irrigation facilities, the same cannot act as estoppel against the respondents and cannot convert a land, which was otherwise uncommand, to command. 14. Merely because despite passing of the order canceling the order dated 7.6.1999, the appellants continued to get the irrigation facilities till the year 2012 and notice was issued to them proposing to discontinue the irrigation facilities, the same cannot act as estoppel against the respondents and cannot convert a land, which was otherwise uncommand, to command. 14. The respondents are justified in taking the stand that the land, which is uncommand, are not entitled for grant of irrigation facilities and that at a given point of time, the facilities were provided on account of the respondents having excess water. 15. Both the courts below have concurrently came to the conclusion that there was no material available on record to indicate the land in question as command land, as noticed hereinbefore, the findings recorded by the two courts below cannot be faulted. 16. The judgments impugned don't give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeals are, therefore, dismissed.