BANWARI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order passed by the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Hanumangarh dated 24.3.2011, who while setting aside the order passed by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Circle-I Hanumangarh has remanded the matter back with the direction to decide it afresh after taking level of the land and hearing the contesting parties. Shri RDSS Kharlia, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that existing water course with regard to which the objection was raised by the private respondent has been operating for last 40 years hence, the objection is highly belated and not bonafide. It is argued that as per second proviso to Section 21 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'Act of 1954"), which provides that any person desiring construction of a new water course may apply in writing to the Divisional Irrigation Officer stating - (i) that he has endeavored unsuccessfully to acquire from the owners of the land through which he desires such water course to pass, a right to occupy on much of the land as will be needed for such water course. Section 22 thereof provides that if the Divisional Irrigation Officer considers (I) that the construction of such water course is expedient; and (2) that the statements in the application are true, he shall call upon the applicant to make such deposit as the Divisional Irrigation Officer considers necessary to defray the cost of the preliminary proceedings, and the amount of any compensation which he considers likely to become due under Section 28.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners then referred to Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 (shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Rules of 1955"), which inter-alia provides that (1) all applications for water to be supplied for irrigation through an existing channel, or through a channel to be constructed by the applicant, shall be made as nearly as may be in Form 1 and (2) a notice under Sections 20, 22 and 23 shall be issued by the Divisional Irrigation Officer to all persons concerned in Form 2. The Executive Engineer on his own has no power either to alter the existing water course or to create a new water course. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in Indar Raj vs. Executive Engineer, 1986 RajLW 392.

(3.) Shri RDSS Kharlia, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that respondents have deliberately filed 22 appeals to show as if several persons are affected by non-supply of water through the disputed water course. Most of them are not affected because their lands are situated much before the water course. They draw water from other sources than the existing water course. Appeals have been multiplied only with a view to putting undue pressure on the authorities for settling personal vendetta. The existing water course was created way back in 1966 and has been operating for last more than 40 years as per the chuk plan register and blue print, which was sanctioned after making necessary amendments in the report.