Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 115 (RAJ)

Balram S/o Sh. Prithvi Raj v. State of Rajasthan

2025-01-20

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, NUPUR BHATI

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is being finally decided today. 3. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16135/2024, filed by the petitioners, was dismissed. 4. The factual matrix of the case leading to the impugned order and this appeal are that in the year 2017, a new canal “FTG Minor” was constructed between the outlets Nos.10 to 40 of the main canal Shyam Singh Wala (‘SSW’) comprising 45 outlets. The P-Form qua the new canal “FTG Minor” was prepared in the year 2017 itself and as per the said P-Form, the canal was constructed and the outlets were provided. 5. The appellants-petitioners are those who were beneficiaries of supply of water to the outlets which were opened at that point of time. 6. However, certain complaints were made by another set of agriculturists of Chak 6-FTG complaining that they were not receiving water supply as per the total CCA of the Chak. It is further borne out from the record of the case that on such complaints received, the fourth respondent namely the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Division-II, Hanumangarh, ordered the Assistant Engineer to make an enquiry in that regard and submit a report. On petitioners own showing, a report dated 20.12.2023 was submitted by the Assistant Engineer to the fourth respondent which was in turn sent to third respondent namely the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Hanumangarh. Vide letter dated 11.03.2024, it was decided to change the size of the outlet of Chak 1-6 FTG. Acting upon the report of the Assistant Engineer, the size of the outlets were altered and it resulted in amendment in the size of the outlet. A letter to the Assistant Engineer was issued on 11.03.2024 along with letter dated 20.12.2023. The same was forwarded on 03.04.2024 by the third respondent to the second respondent namely the Chief Engineer, Water Resources (North), Hanumangarh. Finally vide impugned order dated 20.05.2024, second respondent gave its sanction. 7. The aforesaid proceedings towards amendment in the size of the outlet and order dated 20.05.2024 came to be challenged at the instance of the petitioner by filing the writ petition. 8. Finally vide impugned order dated 20.05.2024, second respondent gave its sanction. 7. The aforesaid proceedings towards amendment in the size of the outlet and order dated 20.05.2024 came to be challenged at the instance of the petitioner by filing the writ petition. 8. The reply of the respondents in sum and substance was that the operation of the existing outlet was only a temporary measure. The stand taken in the reply was that though the scheme was finalized in the year 2017, construction of lines were not completed and a temporary arrangement continued which was not in accord with the sanctioned scheme of distribution of water to the main canal as per approved new Fatehgarh Minor. Upon receipt of report from the Assistant Engineer, having found that the existing outlets were not in accord with the approved scheme of distribution, change in the size of outlet was proposed which was finally approved and sanctioned by the competent authority vide its order dated 20.05.2024. 9. Two main submissions were raised before the learned Single Judge to assail the correctness and validity of the order dated 20.05.2024. The first ground taken was that any change in the size of the outlet amounts to variation or amendment in the supply system and therefore, the same mandatorily required prior permission of the State Government as mandated under Rule 11 (2) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 [‘hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1955’]. The second name of submission was that in any case if there was any change proposed, it required an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to all the petitioners and those agriculturists who were in receipt of the benefit of the existing outlets since 2017. 10. The learned Single Judge rejected both the contentions. According to the learned Single Judge, since the present case was not a case of any alteration in the approved system of distribution of water for the purpose of irrigation to the agriculturists but only to bring about a change/alteration to make the distribution system through various outlets in accord with the approved and finalized supply scheme in the past, State’s approval was not necessary. 11. 11. Assailing correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that finding of the learned Single Judge that the existing system of distribution of water to various outlets, was not in accord with the approved scheme of distribution, even assuming that it could be made a basis, it was within the mischief of Provision contained in Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1955 as the Rule does not refer to the causes behind alteration or modification in the existing distribution system. Even if the alteration was required to bring it in accord with the approved distribution system on the ground that the existing system was not in conformity with the approved design and the system of distribution, that also required approval of the State Government. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of “ Jarnel Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. ” passed in the writ petition bearing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4707/1991 and the order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of “ Randheer Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. ” passed in writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ No.9129/2015 . 12. The other submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the petitioners raised specific grounds to challenge the impugned order that it violated the principles of natural justice, the learned Single Judge has not recorded any finding on this aspect. He submits that whether or not the existing operation of existing system was in accord with the approved scheme or the amendment proposed is in line with the same, could not have been decided without affording opportunity of hearing to the affected agriculturists including the petitioners. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of “ Jaswant v. Mani Ram and Ors. ” passed in writ petition bearing D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.673/2003 and the judgment of the learned Single Bench in the case of “ Amar Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. ” passed in the writ petition bearing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5867/1992. 13. ” passed in writ petition bearing D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.673/2003 and the judgment of the learned Single Bench in the case of “ Amar Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. ” passed in the writ petition bearing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5867/1992. 13. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent-State submits that the authorities which have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable on facts. He would submit that it is not a case where the authorities proposed to change the existing system of supply of water resulting in alteration in the outlet. He would submit that in fact, the stand of the respondents has been that the present arrangement which was going on, was illegal and against the approved scheme of distribution. When complaints were made, an enquiry was made and on the basis of the report, orders were passed to allow all other agriculturists supply of water who were otherwise illegally deprived of the supply of water for the irrigation facility. Even though, the scheme was earlier prepared, it was not being followed. In such circumstances, it is argued, Provision of Rule 11 (2) of the Rules of 1955, is not attracted. He further submitted that even through the learned Single Judge may not have examined the issue as to whether the order is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the fact remains that even while filing this petition, the petitioners have not come out with any pleading or any ground as to why the report could not be acted upon. He would submit that mere allegation of violation of principles of natural justice may not be a ground to grant relief in a given case on its own facts and circumstances. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 15. The learned Single Judge, upon examination of material record, has recorded a finding that the present implementation of the sanctioned plan of the year 2017 cannot be termed to be a change in the established and sanctioned system of water supply. Present is a mere implementation of the already sanctioned plan and therefore, it does not require sanction/permission of the State Government. 16. Present is a mere implementation of the already sanctioned plan and therefore, it does not require sanction/permission of the State Government. 16. On facts, the case in hand is not where the respondents have taken stand that because of the change in the circumstances, it was decided to amend the existing sanctioned plan which led to preparation of a new sanctioned plan and consequent amendment/alteration in the size of the outlet. The stand of the respondents is that the existing supply in operation was only temporary and against the sanctioned plan and the efforts made by the respondents was only to bring it in accord with the sanctioned plan. 17. Whether in such a factual premise, Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1955 would be attracted, is a question which falls for our consideration. 18. The provision contained in Rule 11 of the Rules of 1955 (as amended from time to time) provide for distribution of the canal irrigation. The amended Rule [(as quoted in the order of the learned Single Bench in the case of Randheer Singh and Ors. (supra)], provides that no material change shall be made in the established and sanctioned system of canal distribution except with the previous order of the State Government. What therefore, is ordained and mandated is that any material change in established and sanctioned system of canal distribution shall not be allowed to be varied except with the permission of the State Government in a case where the respondent authorities propose a change in the established and sanctioned system of canal distribution. Certainly, in those cases, the approval of the State Government would be necessary as per the provision. However, in our opinion, where there is no change in the established and sanctioned system of canal distribution but where the appropriate correctional measures are taken to increase or decrease the size of the outlet to bring it in conformity with the existing system of canal distribution, Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1955 will not come in the way and it would not require approval of the State Government. This is for the reason that when a plan of distribution is framed, much exercise is undertaken by the officials. Detailed proceedings are drawn and then, approval from the competent authority is obtained before the system of canal distribution is finalized. This is for the reason that when a plan of distribution is framed, much exercise is undertaken by the officials. Detailed proceedings are drawn and then, approval from the competent authority is obtained before the system of canal distribution is finalized. Once that process is already undertaken, it is only when a change is required to be brought in the system that an approval from the competent authority would be necessary. However, in a case where a canal distribution system has already been established and sanctioned but on complaints it is found that supply of water is not taking place as per the established and sanctioned system of canal distribution, it would not be a case of material change in the established and sanctioned system of canal distribution but a case of violation of established and sanctioned system of canal distribution. Therefore, in such cases prior approval of the State Government is not required. Interpretation of the rule as suggested by learned counsel for the appellant not only results in amendment in the rule but is impracticable and may cause serious inconvenience. There may be cases and cases time and again where complaints may be made before the authorities that supplies thorough the outlets is not being done in accordance with the established and sanctioned system of canal distribution. To say that every time when such complaints are made and an attempt is made to bring the distribution in accord with the established and sanctioned system of canal distribution, approval of the State Government will have to be obtained, in our opinion, is neither desirable, nor is reflected from fair and logical interpretation of Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1955. 19. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jarnel Singh (supra). On facts, that was a case where the validity of Rule 11(3) of the Rules of 1955, was challenged on the ground that the said rule is ultravires the enabling act, as the Provision contained in Section 31 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 [‘hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954’] do not allow the rule making authority to frame rules on those aspects. This was the main contention which was under consideration before the Division Bench. This was the main contention which was under consideration before the Division Bench. The Division Bench interpreted the Provision contained in Section 31 of the Act of 1954 and then, upheld the validity of the rule holding that Rule 11(3) of the Rules of 1955 is not ultravires the enabling provisions under the Act. What has been observed by the Division Bench in para 16 and 17 of the judgment, in our respectful consideration, does not deal with the issue in hand in the present case as to whether it would be necessary to obtain the approval of the State Government even in case the size of the outlet is required to be corrected to bring it in accord and line with the established and sanctioned canal distribution system. 20. The other judgment of a learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Randheer Singh (supra) is not a proposition for the authority that under all circumstances, including cases where the correctional measures are taken to bring the outlet in accord with the established and sanctioned canal distribution system, approval of the State Government would be required to be obtained. As the facts of that case reveal, the stand taken by the respondents in that case was that endeavour of the respondents authorities to repair/relocate the mogas/outlets is totally bonafide and inevitable because it is a consequence of modernization of the canal. Clearly, therefore, there was an attempt to modify the canal on certain considerations. On facts, that was not a case where the authorities had proceeded to alter the size of the outlet to bring it in accord with the established and sanctioned canal distribution system. Therefore, that judgment is also distinguishable on facts. 21. We find that though a ground was taken by the petitioners that the order impugned is in violation of principles of natural justice, relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jasvant v. Mani Ram & Ors. (supra) wherein it was held that an order affecting established and sanctioned system of irrigation could not be passed without notice to the parties affected by such change in the established and sanctioned system of irrigation, on facts that was a case where an attempt was made to bring about the alteration in the established and sanctioned system of irrigation. (supra) wherein it was held that an order affecting established and sanctioned system of irrigation could not be passed without notice to the parties affected by such change in the established and sanctioned system of irrigation, on facts that was a case where an attempt was made to bring about the alteration in the established and sanctioned system of irrigation. The other judgment in the case of Amar Singh & Ors. (supra) is also, for the same reason distinguishable on facts. 22. Even though, the learned Single Judge has not considered this aspect, we have allowed the learned counsel for the appellants to raise this issue. We would have granted indulgence if on facts, it would have been found that serious objection has been taken to the report of the Assistant Engineer, which was made a basis to issue the impugned order. However, in the entire petition, there is no whisper that the report of the Assistant Engineer on certain grounds was not factually correct and had an opportunity of hearing been afforded, the petitioner would have satisfied the authority that the operation of existing water distribution was in accord with the established and sanctioned canal distribution system and the report had the effect of violating existing canal distribution system. But on facts, no such case has been built up by the petitioner. 23. It is well settled that principles of natural justice are not unruly horse. Unless an appropriate case from facts is made out, order could not be held bad only on a technical ground. In the absence of there being any challenge to the correctness and validity of the report, much less any case made out that the supply system which was in currency and which was sought to be corrected was as per sanctioned scheme and not the new one, we are not inclined to interfere only on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. 24. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16124/2024 and thus, the instant special appeal (writ), is dismissed. 25. 24. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16124/2024 and thus, the instant special appeal (writ), is dismissed. 25. Before parting with the case, we hasten to clarify that if in future, any material is brought before the authorities to satisfy otherwise, this order shall not come in the way of the authorities in taking such appropriate measures as may be necessary and required to ensure that the operation of the water irrigation system is in accord with the approved scheme.