SHRI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioners' is that they are the Khatedar tenants of Murabba No. 125/338 in Chak No. 22 NDR, in Tehsil Hanumangarh of District Sri Ganganagar and their grievance is that the non -petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 divided Chak No. 22 NDR into two and included the petitioners' land (square No. 125/338) in the newly formed Chak No. 3 AWSM (B) without any notice to the petitioners and without affording them an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The writ petition was initially filed by Shri. Ram petitioner No. 1 alone, but later on, on the objections of the respondents, other co -sharers of Murabba No. 125/338 were added as petitioners to the writ petition.

(2.) THE respondents' case is that the petitioner Shri. Ram representing all the petitioners had consented to the transfer of the land comprised in Murbba No. 125/338 n the newly formed Chak No. 3 AWSM (B) and as such they cannot now object to the division of Chak No. 22 MDR into two and the transfer of their land in field No. 125/338 to the newly formed Chak No. 3 AWSM (B). The petitioner Shri. Ram in his rejoinders, while admitting his signatures on the Razinama statement, submitted that his signatures were obtained by mis -representation of facts, as he was told that permanent water channels were being constructed and his signatures were being obtained in the respect. The original record from the office of the Superintending Irrigation Officer, Hanumangarh was called for and from a perusal thereof it appears that a Razinama statement was prepared for transfer of some lands from Chak No. 22 NDR to the newly formed Chak No. 3 AWSM (B) and all persons, who had consented to the transfers had signed after writing the word (**jkth**). Entry No. 13 of the aforesaid Razinama statement shows that Shri. Ram had put his signature after writing the word (**jkth**), while another petitioner Prem has put his thumb impression in token of consent. It, there fore, appears that the Superintending Irrigation Officer was justified in observing in his order Ex. 3 dated May 2, 1977, that all the concerned cultivators had agreed to the transfer of their lands from Chak No. 22 NDR to the newly formed Chak No. 3 AWSM (B) except one Sajan. The petitioner having already consented to the transfer of their land to the newly formed Chak No. 3 AWSM (B), the question of lack of notice has lost all its importance and it cannot be said that the transfer of the petitioners' fields of Murabba No 125/328 to Chak No. 3 AWSM. Be was brought about without the knowledge and consent of the petitioners. As a matter of fact, there is an express consent of the petitioners Shri. Ram and Prem in the Razinama statement and their explanation in the rejoinder does not appear worthy of any credence.

(3.) EVEN if the submission of the learned Counsel is accepted that the proceedings Under Rule 11 should have been taken before the Divisional Irrigation Officer, then also the impugned order does not suffer from total lack of jurisdiction. The procedure adopted in the present case was that a report was submitted by the Divisional Irrigation Officer to the Superintending Irrigation Officer, in respect of the proposal to change the existing system of canal irrigation by transferring certain fields, including that of the petitioners, to the newly formed Chak No. 3 AWSM (B) and there after the Superintending Irrigation Officer heard the matter and he also inspected the site on April 14, 1977. According to his order dated May 2, 1977, all the persons present had agreed to the proposed transfer except Sajan. Thus, it might be an irregularity that the Divisional Irrigation Officer did not pass an order against which an appeal could be preferred by either party before the Superintending Irrigation Officer, but h submitted a report to the Superintending Irrigation Officer, who made enquiry and concurred with the view expressed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer.