Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1647 (RAJ)

Chet Ram S/o. Raja Ram v. Duni Ram S/o. Hira Ram

2023-09-04

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs : “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction: (i) The impugned order dated 03.08.2023 (Ann.13) passed by8 learned Addl. District Judge No.1, Nohar District Hanumangarh may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) The order dated 20.07.2023 (Ann.11) passed by learned Civil Judge, Nohar District Hanumangarh may kindly be ordered to be maintained. (iii) The respondent no.3 may kindly be directed to remove the siphon pulia and ordered to construct the pulia as per the permission order dated 11.09.2019 (Annex-1). (iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the petitioners are having an agricultural land, wherefor they are getting the irrigation facility from pucca water course between stone no.316/402 & stone no.316/403. The respondent no.1 filed an application for construction of the pucca pulia over the said water course to reach his land situated in Kila No.2 of Chak 24 JSN Stone No. 316/403, and permission for the same was granted by the respondent no.3. 2.1. Thereafter, the respondent-authorities issued a notice on 31.05.2022 to the respondent no.1, stating therein that the respondent no.1 has not constructed the pulia, strictly as per the sanction order. 2.2. The respondent no.1, being aggrieved, filed a suit for permanent injunction along with an application seeking temporary injunction against the removal of the constructed siphon pulia before the learned Civil Judge, Nohar. Thereafter, the learned Court below, upon hearing the parties, vide order dated 04.02.2023, rejected the temporary injunction application. The respondent no.1 preferred an appeal, against the said order, before the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, which was allowed vide order dated 20.02.2023, while remanding the matter back to the learned Trial Court for fresh consideration. 2.3. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court, upon hearing the parties again rejected the temporary injunction application, vide order dated 20.07.2023. The respondent no.1 preferred an appeal, against the said order, before the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, which was allowed vide order dated 20.02.2023, while remanding the matter back to the learned Trial Court for fresh consideration. 2.3. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court, upon hearing the parties again rejected the temporary injunction application, vide order dated 20.07.2023. The respondent no.1 again preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge No.1, Nohar, which was allowed vide order dated 03.08.2023 and the injunction order was passed, whereby it was ordered that the siphon pulia shall not be removed, and the usage thereof shall not be disturbed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the siphon pulia was constructed by the respondent no.1 without the sanction order, and therefore, no prima facie case was made out in favour of the respondent no.1; thus, the impugned order dated 03.08.2023 is not justified in law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent no.1 constructed the siphon pulia against the prescribed parameters; the respondent no.1 has also constructed two chambers by damaging the pucca water course and also installed the pipe, in deep, due to which the water flow as provided to the petitioners would be obstructed. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Court below, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 04.02.2023, has rightly rejected the temporary injunction application filed by the respondent no.1, but the learned Appellate Court below has accepted such prayer for the temporary injunction, without any cogent reason, and therefore, the impugned order dated 03.08.2023 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that due to the khala, the respondent’s land was divided into two parts, and therefore, the respondent, after obtaining due permission from the concerned Department, constructed the siphon pulia in question at its own expenses, and thus, the order for removal of pulia in question was contrary to law; thereafter, the learned Appellate Court below has rightly passed the impugned order. 4.1. It was also submitted that as per the report dated 13.07.2023 of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Nohar, the water was running for last 4 years from the siphon pulia and no damage was caused to the irrigation facility. 4.1. It was also submitted that as per the report dated 13.07.2023 of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Nohar, the water was running for last 4 years from the siphon pulia and no damage was caused to the irrigation facility. It was also submitted that as per the said report, the neighbouring farmers have no issue in regard to such continuing irrigation facility, and therefore the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court below is justified in law. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that the respondent no.1 constructed the siphon pulia above the aforementioned water course to reach his land, and thereafter the respondent-Department issued notice calling upon him to remove the said pulia, because the respondent no.1 has done the same, without the requisite sanction order. The respondent no.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction along with an application seeking temporary injunction before the learned Trial Court, but the temporary injunction application was rejected vide order dated 04.02.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no.1 filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Court below, which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 20.02.2023, while passing temporary injunction order. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no.1 filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Court below, which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 20.02.2023, while passing temporary injunction order. 7. This Court further observes that the learned Appellate Court below in the impugned order mentioned that the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division itself visited the disputed site and conducted the inspection, whereupon it was found that the water was running in the water course for the last four years in an appropriate manner, and that, the neighbouring farmers have also no objection regarding the pulia in question, and that, not a single farmer is adversely affected thereby; the same is reflected in the report dated 13.07.2023 of the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division; the said report is reproduced as hereunder : ^^pd 24 ts,l,u ds dkLrdkjksa ds izkFkZuk i= fnukad 11-07-2023 iqfy;k ckcr~ lgk;d vfHk;Urk dks vknsf'kr fd, tkus ds mijkar lgk;d vfHk;Urk us viuh fjikksVZ esa crk;k fd d-fu-vfHk- }kjk ekSdk tkap esa tk;k fd vkpZ iqfy;k dk fuekZ.k dh Lohd`fr nh xbZ Fkh] ijUrq dkLrdkj }kjk lkbZQu iqfy;k dk fuekZ.k dj fy;k x;k gSA vkt fnukad 13-07-2023 dks d-fu-vfHk- }kjk V~;wcosy ls ikuh izokfgr dj ns[kk x;k ftlesa ikuh fcuk fdlh vojks/k ds py jgk gS] ,oa vkl&ikl ds dkLrdkjksa ls okrkZyki fd;k x;k ftlesa dkLrkdjksa }kjk crk;k x;k fd lkbZQu iqfy;k ls gesa fdlh izdkj ls flapkbZ lqfo/kk esa ck/kk ugha gks jgh gS] lkbZQu iqfy;k fuekZ.k ls orZeku esa [kkys dks fdlh Hkh izdkj ls uqdlku ugha igqap jgk gSA o"kZ 2019 esa iqfy;k Lohd`r gqbZ ysfdu HkkSfrd fLFkfr ds vuqlkj [kkys dh ÅapkbZ vf/kd gksus ls dkLrdkj ds [kpkZ ij lkbZQu iqfy;k dk fuekZ.k fd;k x;k Fkk] mDr lkbZQu iqfy;k ls fiNys pkj lkyksa ls flapkbZ ikuh py jgk gS] blfy, lkbZQu iqfy;k ls vU; dkLrdkjksa dks dksbZ {kfr ugha gksus ls izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA** 8. This Court also observes that the respondent no.1 had constructed the pulia in question for approaching his agricultural land, and that, prima facie case was clearly made out for temporary injunction. This Court further observes that the present case clearly falls under the parameters for grant of the temporary injunction, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court below is perfectly justified in law. 9. This Court further observes that the present case clearly falls under the parameters for grant of the temporary injunction, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court below is perfectly justified in law. 9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petition. 10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending application disposed of.