Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 612 (RAJ)

Vedpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2021-03-15

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2021
JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court. 2. The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions, in sum and substance, claiming the following relief:- "By an appropriate writ, order or direction order may kindly be issued and order dated 05.06.2020 (Annex. 5) passed by the respondent no. 3, may kindly be quashed and set aside. By an appropriate writ order or direction order may kindly issued and the respondent may kindly be directed to provide the water supply in Chak 5 JBR (Jabrasar) from the existing Mogha No. 5 of the Jabrasar minor." 3. Learned counsel for the parties have drawn attention of this Court towards the order passed by this Court on 12.06.2020, which reads as under:- "Learned counsel for the parties have been heard through video conferencing. Mr. Rakesh Matoria, learned counsel submits that he has filed an application on behalf of applicants for being impleadment as party respondents to the present writ petition. Office is directed to tag the same. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AAG appearing for the State and learned counsel for the applicants. Issue notice. Reply, if any, be filed by the next date. List the petition on 13.7.2020. In the meanwhile, the order dated 5.6.2020 (Annex. 4), passed by the Executive Engineer ordering for stopping the water supply in outlet No. 5-JBR shall remain stayed and the water supply shall be resumed. It is further directed that petitioners shall not in any manner obstruct the water supply of any other agriculturist who is part of the Chak including the applicants herein. Insofar as, the grievance raised pertaining to the period for which, the water supply is being made, the Executive Engineer keeping in view the total number of cultivators in the Chak would determine the period, for which, each cultivator would be entitled to supply of water and pass appropriate orders in this regard, which would be scrupulously followed by the petitioners and the applicants besides others. If it is found by the Executive Engineer that the directions issued by him pertaining to the water supply were not being followed and/or water supply is being obstructed by any of the cultivators, he would be free to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law." 4. If it is found by the Executive Engineer that the directions issued by him pertaining to the water supply were not being followed and/or water supply is being obstructed by any of the cultivators, he would be free to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State has arbitrarily stopped the water supply in outlet No. 5 JBR, and thus, the State be directed to continue the water supply and at the same time, the interim order is also required that they shall not in any manner obstruct the water of any other agriculturist, who is part of Chak including the applicants therein. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in case, there is anyone who has violated the aforesaid order of this Court dated 12.06.2020, then their water supply could be stalled by the State but those who are prepared to abide by the Barabandi in question and the temporary arrangement being made, ought not to be deprived of the water supply. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General is present in the Court and submits that they had prepared a Barabandi and were prepared to implement the order dated 12.06.2020 in the true spirit by giving the respective share of water to each one of the entitled persons in outlet no. 5 JBR but unfortunately, some of the petitioners are not adhering to the aforementioned order dated 12.06.2020 and are causing obstruction in the water supply of the other agriculturist and thus, the State has left with no other option but to close the water supply in totality. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that prayer of the petitioners that only the erring persons ought to be penalized by stopping their water, cannot be accepted because in temporary Barabandi, the arrangements are not such that an isolated closure is made. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General has also submitted Annex. R/20, which is name of the persons, who are violating the Barabandi and learned AAG submits that most of the petitioners fall under the list of Annex. R/20. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General has also submitted Annex. R/20, which is name of the persons, who are violating the Barabandi and learned AAG submits that most of the petitioners fall under the list of Annex. R/20. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Rakesh Matoria, however, vehemently submits that even today the matter could be resolved, if the petitioners give a fresh undertaking that each of the agriculturist shall abide by the arrangement reached at by the State for supplying the water at the outlet No. 5 JBR. 10. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, is of the firm opinion that the dispute between the private parties cannot be resolved in the writ jurisdiction unless the State is taking a stand, whereby isolating the peculiar violators of the Barabandi are identified and acted upon. Since it is a temporary arrangement where such violators cannot be excluded from the water supply of the persons, who are adhering to the Barabandi, this Court finds that any interference at this stage would not be possible. 11. Furthermore, this Court is also conscious of the fact that the order dated 12.06.2020, which was passed as an interim order by this Court has been violated by the petitioners, which is clearly reflected in the Annex. R/20, as submitted by learned AAG. 12. This Court also takes note of the fact that the permanent Barabandi/canal is being laid down and such work is in progress and shall be completed soon, which will enable the State to exclude the defaulters and give water to all eligible. 13. Thus, while disposing of the present writ petitions, this Court reaffirms the order dated 12.06.2020 and direct all the parties that they may receive the water in outlet no. 5 JBR in accordance with the Barabandi laid down by the State, in case they are prepared to adhere not to obstruct the water supply of any other agriculturist. The final solution of-course would be with the permanent structures being created, which the State is being done expeditiously. 14. It is made clear that until the technical exclusion of the defaulters is manageable by the State, the violators shall attract no supply of water to the outlet no. 5 JBR. The final solution of-course would be with the permanent structures being created, which the State is being done expeditiously. 14. It is made clear that until the technical exclusion of the defaulters is manageable by the State, the violators shall attract no supply of water to the outlet no. 5 JBR. Needless to say that State shall sympathetically keep on reviewing its stand regarding the violators and persons amongst the agriculturist, who are prepared to stand by the arrangement made by the State shall not be deprived but if exclusion of violators is not technically possible then State shall be free to stop water for the area. 15. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterates his undertaking before the court that they shall not obstruct the flow of water for anyone in outlet No. 5 JBR and therefore, the supply may be continued by the State. Learned AAG assures this Court that in case there are no violators in future, the supply shall be continued as per the Barabandi and if the violation is there, the State shall be required to stop the water of all, until the exclusion of the violators is permissible. 16. Stay petition as well as all pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.