Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2064 (RAJ)

Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2021-11-08

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition for writ may kindly be allowed and the order impugned dated 20.07.2016 (Annexure-11) and order dated 25.06.2019 (Annexure-13) as well as the entire proceedings undertaken by the respondents, for installing APM machine outlet for the petitioners chak 15-16 KRW may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside, and B] By an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may kindly be restrained from removing the proportional distributor established at RD 39705 for chak 15-16 KRW and 17-18 KRW, and from disturbing the irrigation facilities of the petitioners chak 15-16 KRW." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present petitioners are agriculturists having their land in Chak 15 & 16 KRW; Chaks 14, 15, 16 & 17 are adjacent villages and all fall in Panchayat Circle, Khatsajwar. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners' chak is in tail of Kardwala Minor, alongwith Chak 17 & 18. Learned counsel also submits that the government has granted sanction for removal of Proportionate Distribution (P.D.) and for shifting the tail from RD 39705 to RD 46000, and the authorities are proceeding to implement the same. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards an earlier order dated 23.04.2019 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10422/2016, whereby the respondents were directed to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, and thereafter, pass necessary orders; operative portion of the said order reads as under: "17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is satisfied that the modernization and betterment of the canal has to take place as per schemes and policies of the State Government. The ever changing techniques have to be adopted as per the technical expert's opinion, and such betterment of the canal cannot be interfered with by this Court in an ordinary circumstance. The ever changing techniques have to be adopted as per the technical expert's opinion, and such betterment of the canal cannot be interfered with by this Court in an ordinary circumstance. The existing irrigation system has to be upgraded and updated from time to time by the State in the larger interest of the farmers, as a scarcity of the water, and more and more land to be irrigated is an ever increasing problem before the State of Rajasthan. 18. At the same time, this Court also observes that wherever modernization/ upgradation/ updation/ technical betterment is being done by the State, it ought to be properly explained to the farmers in question, and their views and opinion should also be taken, so as to ensure that there is no misapprehensions in the mind of the persons, who are getting the water. 19. Although, this Court believes that the State would not reduce the water supply below sanctioned capacity in respect of the existing setup to the prejudice of any of the farmers and shall make all their efforts to ensure that the farmer concerned himself is satisfied regarding such prejudice not being caused to him by the changes being proposed by the policies of the State Government. 20. In these circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that the Chief Engineer of the Department concerned shall give opportunity of personal hearing to the representatives of Chak No.15 and 16 KRW and after giving them such adequate opportunity of hearing and as per the policy, the necessary implementation of the upgradation/changes shall be made. It shall be open for the petitioners to explain their propositions regarding distribution of water in the canal in question. The Chief Engineer concerned is directed to examine the grievances of the respective parties or their representatives from all view points, and thereafter, pass an appropriate speaking order in the matter. The parties (petitioners and respondents) who want to represent themselves before the Chief Engineer, shall appear in the office of Chief Engineer concerned on 17.05.2019 at 10:00 AM alongwith their written submissions as well as oral propositions. Such decision shall be taken at the earliest, and execution of the work at site shall thereafter be conducted as per the policy of the State. 21. Such decision shall be taken at the earliest, and execution of the work at site shall thereafter be conducted as per the policy of the State. 21. It is further noted that the State shall abide by the conditions imposed upon themselves by the previous orders, as per which, they shall firstly ensure that all concerned or their representatives are adequately heard; secondly, no farmer's water rights are prejudiced, and; thirdly, there shall not be a negative impact upon any of the farmers as far as quantum of water supply is concerned, which shall be maintained, strictly in accordance with law under the policy of the State, and other conditions of the Department shall also be fulfilled." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners however, submits that the respondents have passed a mechanical order of upgrading the canal by introducing an Adjustable Proportional Module (A.P.M.) machine, which shall be detrimental to the petitioners' right of getting authorized volume of water for irrigation purposes. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the fact that not only the A.P.M. machine will reduce the volume of water, but shall also cause serious prejudice to the petitioners, as the same does not conform to the prescription of Sections 18 & 19 of the Rajasthan Farmers Participation in Management of Irrigation System Act, 2000. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as far as the impugned orders are concerned Sections 18 & 19 of the Act of 2000 are not applicable, because the issue does not pertain to distributories and medium drainage, but it is a larger issue of the canal itself, and thus, the same shall be governed by Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Water Drainage (Amendment) Rules, 2009. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the State Government had already passed the necessary orders, which are being executed at the right level. Learned counsel also submits that in pursuance of the aforementioned order of this Court, complete and adequate opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. Learned counsel thus, made a categorical submission that the irrigation right of the petitioners shall not be prejudiced in any manner whatsoever, as the volume of water authorized to the petitioners shall remain the intact. 8. Learned counsel thus, made a categorical submission that the irrigation right of the petitioners shall not be prejudiced in any manner whatsoever, as the volume of water authorized to the petitioners shall remain the intact. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and also perusing the record of the case, alongwith the previous order, as aforementioned, passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10422/2016, this Court does not find any reason so as to make any interference in the impugned orders. 9. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. However, the respondents shall be required to ensure that the petitioners receive their authorized volume of the water, as per the Irrigation Plan; further, the modernization and other steps being authorized by the State Government shall be undertaken and completed by the respondents expeditiously. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.