MANGERAM Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dt. 11.03.2013 passed learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (for short 'the appellate Court' hereinafter) in Appeal No. 4/2013, whereby the appellate Court has confirmed the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nohar, District Hanumangarh (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter), whereby the learned trial Court has refused to grant temporary injunction against the respondents on an application of this effect preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents - Irrigation Department Authorities to construct the water course from Stone No. 219/48 to 219/47 and sought a direction to construct the water course from Stone No. 219/55 to 219/47. Along with the suit for permanent injunction, an application for temporary injunction was also filed, which came to be rejected by the learned trial Court by order dt. 25.02.2013, wherein the learned trial Court has observed that the petitioner has preferred an application before the Irrigation Authorities with the prayer to construct the water course from Stone No. 219/55 to 219/47 instead of Stone No. 219/48 to 219/47, and the Irrigation Authorities, after taking into consideration the proposal/suggestion of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the said proposal is not technically viable and the alignment made by the Irrigation Authorities for constructing the water course from Stone No. 219/48 to 219/47 is only technically viable.

(2.) THE learned appellate Court, after taking into consideration the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner, has held that the Irrigation Authorities have prepared the Chak Plan while taking into consideration that the water course should be constructed on a low cost and more agricultural lands should be irrigated. The learned appellate Court has also observed that the mChak Plan prepared by the Irrigation Department is proper and the grievances raised by the petitioner regarding the construction of the water course have already been disposed of by the authorities. It has further been observed by the learned appellate Court that there is no possibility of the situation wherein the petitioner will get less water for irrigation and when the Chak Plan was prepared by the technical experts for giving water to more agriculturists, no fault can be found with the order passed by the trial Court, which has considered all the aspects of the matter and has thereafter passed the order of rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction.

(3.) AFTER considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the material placed on record, and perusing the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below, this Court is of the opinion that the construction of the water course is the job of the Irrigation Department and the Irrigation Department, after preparation of the Chak Plan, has decided to construct the water course for the purpose of providing irrigation facilities to more number of farmers. When the irrigation authorities have considered the grievance of the petitioner and concluded that the proposal/suggestion given by the petitioner to construct the water course at particular place is not technically viable, the Courts below and even this Court have no expertise to take a different view.