Dismissed

Hanuman and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC21 Jul 2017CW/8014/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition filed to quash a Superintending Engineer's order remanding a matter to take a fresh decision on sanctioning a water course. The Court found no illegality as the Assistant Engineer reported the old course was not operational and observed the dispute was between the parties.

What did the court decide?

The instant writ petition is dismissed in limine.

Hanuman and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8014 / 2017

¶3

Hanuman S/o Shri Ramswroop, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Bishnoi, R/o Village 5 SGR, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶4

Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Ladhu Singh, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village 5 SGR, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan Through the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Division - II, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.

¶8

The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle. Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh.

¶9

Nourang Ram

¶10

Shri Puran Chand

¶11

Girdhari Lal

¶12

Purkha Ram

¶13

Magraj

¶14

Lal Chand, All Are Sons of Shri Khetaram by Caste Meghwal, R/o Chak 5 SGR, Village, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr H.S.Sidhu

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶18

Order

¶19

21/07/2017

¶20

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 10.02.2017 (Annexure-P/10) passed by the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Hanumangarh in Appeal No.77/2015, whereby he has remanded

¶21

(2 of 6)

¶22

[CW-8014/2017]

¶23

the matter to the Executive Engineer to take a fresh decision on sanctioning water course at Stone No.2-W/313.6, 3-W/313.9 to 4- W/313.9 of Chak No.5 SGR of Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶24

The case as set up by the petitioner is that the Executive Engineer, Pilibanga has sanctioned a new water course vide order dated 03.01.1989 (Annexure-P/1) in Chak No.5 SGR at Stone No.2-W/313.6, 3-W/313.9 to 4-W/313.9. Against the said order, one Dayala Ram filed an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, Hanumangarh and the said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.01.1990 (Annexure-P/2). Thereafter the petitioner moved an application on 30.07.2015 (Annexure-P/3) before the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Hanumangarh with a prayer to issue necessary directions to the Revenue Department Authorities to record the new water course in the revenue records.

¶25

On instructions, the Assistant Engineer, Water Resources, Pilibanga sought a report from the concerned Patwari, who has submitted his report (Annexure-P/4) stating that the water course sanctioned way back in the year 1989 vide Annexure-P/1 is at present in operation. On the basis of the report of the Patwari, the Assistant Engineer forwarded his report dated 04.08.2015 (Annexure-P/5) to the Executive Engineer for necessary action. On the basis of the report of the Assistant Engineer, the Executive Engineer vide order dated 07.08.2015 (Annexure-P/6) issued a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pilibanga to make necessary entries in the revenue records in

¶26

(3 of 6)

¶27

[CW-8014/2017]

¶28

respect of the water course sanctioned vide order dated 03.01.1989 (Annexure-P/1). Against the order dated 07.08.2015, respondent Nos. 3 to 8 preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, who disposed of the said appeal vide order dated 10.07.2017 (Annexure-P/10) and remanded the matter to the Executive Engineer with a direction to take a fresh decision on sanctioning the new water course, which was earlier sanctioned vide order dated 03.01.1989 (Annexure-P/1).

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the appeal preferred by the respondent Nos.3 to 8 before the Superintending Engineer was essentially against the order dated 03.01.1989 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Executive Engineer and the same was filed after a delay of around 26 years, however, no application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was filed but the Superintending Engineer without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter has illegally entertained the said appeal.

¶30

It is further submitted that as a matter of fact the appeal against the order dated 03.01.1989 was already rejected by the Superintending Engineer in the year 1990 itself i.e. on 18.01.1990 (Annexure-P/2) and for this reason also, the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 before the Superintending Engineer was not at all maintainable and in view of the above position, the impugned order dated 10.02.2017 (Annexure-P/10) is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the new water course sanctioned by the Executive Engineer

¶32

(4 of 6)

¶33

[CW-8014/2017]

¶34

vide order dated 03.01.1989 (Annexure-P/1) is in operation since the year 1989 and the said fact is also ascertained by the Patwari concerned as well as the Assistant Engineer in their reportsAnnexures-P/4 and P/5 respectively but the Superintending Engineer without taking into consideration the said reports has illegally directed the Executive Engineer to take a fresh decision on opening of the new water course from Stone No.2-W/313.6, 3- W/313.9 to 4-W/313.9 in Chak No. 5 SGR.

¶35

It is also contended that father of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 was very much party in the appeal decided on 18.01.1990 (Annexure-P/2) and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 had no knowledge about the order dated 18.01.1990.

¶36

On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 10.02.2017 (Annexure-P/10) passed by the Superintending Engineer.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record.

¶38

It is noticed that the Superintending Engineer had sought a report from the Assistant Engineer concerned and it is mentioned in the impugned order that the Assistant Engineer has reported that the water course sanctioned vide order dated 03.01.1989 is not in operation. The Superintending Engineer has further observed that what is the necessity of two water courses for the same Murabba when a water course already exists for the

¶39

(5 of 6)

¶40

[CW-8014/2017]

¶41

purpose of providing water supply to the agriculture field of the area. The Superintending Engineer has also taken into consideration the various disputes pending between the parties in the revenue courts as well as the civil courts. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder:

¶42

“vihyk/khu vkns’kksa ds rgr Lohdr dqrjh tyekxZ ekSdk ij fdl LFkku ij py jgk gSA eq- ua-4W/313 o 3W/313 dh ckjh fdu ukdksa ij gS o bu eqjCcksa dh flapkbZ ds fy, vU; D;k O;oLFkk gSA ekSdk dh fjiksVZ pkgs tkus ij fQYM LVkQ ds lgk;d vfHk;ark us iVokjh gYdk ls ekSdk fjiksVZ ysdj viuh fjiksVZ esa iz’ukxr tyekxZ ugj dh lhek esa py jgk gS o Hkaoj flag ds vykok [ksrkjke] jkeLo:i iq= guqeku dh ckjh vU; ukdks ij gksuk n’kkZ;k gS rFkk dqrjh u;s tyekxZ ds vykok bu d"kdksa dh Hkwfe ds fy, i- ua- 4W/311 ls 4W/313 rd tyekxZ o i- ua- 4W/313 ds fdyk ua- 5 esa ukdk Lohdr gksuk n’kkZ;k x;k gSA bu mijksDr lHkh fcUnqvksa ls Li"V gS fd vf/k’kk"kh vfHk;ark }kjk Lohdr dqrjh tyekxZ vihykUV~l dh Hkwfe esa uk pydj ugj lhek esa py jgk gS blfy, vHkh rd vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;ark ds fu.kZ; vuqlkj fØ;kfUofr ugha gqbZ gS orZeku Hkwfe ekfyd viuh Hkwfe esa ls tyekxZ nsuk ugha pkgrs gSA Lohdr u;k tyekxZ vihykUV dh Hkwfe esa jktLo fjdkWMZ esa xSj eqefdu ¼vey njken½ ugha gqvk gSA blds vykok u;s dqrjh tyekxZ ds vykok eq- ua- 4W/313 o 3W/313 ds fy, iwoZ ls gh tyekxZ o i- ua- 4W/313 ij ukdk Lohdr 'kqnk gS rks nksuksa eqjCcksa ds fy, nks tyekxZ Lohd`r fd;s tkus dgka rd mfpr gSA of.kZr eqjCcksa ds nksuksa vksj tyekxZ gksus ls tyekxZ dh [kky HkjkbZ Hkh vfrfjDr :i ls nsuh gksrh gSA blds vykok bl izdj.k ls lEcfU/kr vU; okn jktLo foHkkx o ekuuh; flfoy U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gSA ,slh fLFkfr es izdj.k vf/k’kk"kh vfHk;ark dks fjek.M dj funsZ’k fn;s tkrs gSa fd os bu lHkh fcUnqvksa o ekSdk fLFkfr ij iqu% izdk’k Mkyrs gq, izHkkfor dks lqudj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ij iqu% u;s fljs ls fu.kZ; ysosaA “

¶43

This Court is of the opinion that when the Assistant Engineer has specifically reported that the water course sanctioned way back in the year 1989 is not operational and an another water course for supplying the water facility to the agriculture fields already exists, the direction given by the

¶44

(6 of 6)

¶45

[CW-8014/2017]

¶46

Superintending Engineer to the Executive Engineer to take a fresh decision in respect of sanctioning new water course cannot be said to be unjustified in any manner.

¶47

So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal preferred by the respondent Nos.3 to 8 was time barred as the same was filed against the order dated 03.01.1989 is concerned, the same is without any merit because from the subject of the appeal as mentioned in the impugned order (Annexure-P/10), it is clear that the appeal is preferred by the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 against the order dated 07.08.2015, whereby the Executive Engineer has directed the revenue authorities to make entry regarding the water course in the revenue records and in view of this, it cannot be said that respondent Nos.3 to 8 had preferred the appeal against the order dated 03.01.1989 after 26 years.

¶48

In view of the above discussions, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. Hence, no case for interference is made out. The instant writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

¶49

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶50

m.asif/PS

Hanuman and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Kalyan Granites Vs State and Ors.

M/S.Gattani Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Nirmal Singh and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Himmat Mal Vs Municipal Board, Takhatgarh and Anr.

Ratna Ram Vs State and Ors.

Kanta and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.