In D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ Nos. 967/2008 & 970/2008, the High Court of Rajasthan disposed of appeals concerning irrigation water allocation by allowing the appeals and setting aside impugned orders. The court directed maintenance of the status quo regarding sanctioned water flow.
The appeals are allowed; impugned orders dated 17.09.2008 are set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 967/2008
Balwant Singh & Ors
----Appellant
Versus
State & Ors
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 970/2008
| Diwan Singh & Anr | ----Appellant Versus |
|---|---|
| State & Ors | |
| ----Respondent | |
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. C.S. Kotwani. |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Kannishk Singhvi for Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat. |
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
10/12/2019
Learned counsel for both parties jointly submit that the status of irrigation is such that the sanctioned flow is maintained at the micro level.
Such factual matrix is result of the interim order passed by this Court on 13.05.2009, which reads as follows:
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appeal is admitted. Since the respondents represented, notice need not be issued.
Heard learned counsel on stay. The stay application is allowed in the manner that the respondents shall not in any manner take any such
(2 of 2)
[SAW-967/2008]
step, which may affect, or reduce, the water supply even in micro level, below the one originally sanctioned, to each of the petitioners. It is, however, clarified and further directed that in any case where the existing Crop is existing unharvested, and is in the requirement of water for its proper ripening, then in those cases the cultivator shall be continued to be provided the water as was being provided hitherto-fore, this present order in those may be given effect to after the requirement of water to the crop in the particular field of the particular cultivator is over.
Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. C.S. Kotwani fairly submits that the interim order allowing the appellants sanctioned water at micro level is satisfying their requirement and thus if it is made final, the controversy will be set at rest.
Counsel for the State submits that maintaining the interim order would entitle the appellants only to the sanctioned water strength and thus would be justifiable.
In light of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is inclined to allow to appeals in terms of the interim order quoted hereinabove. Setting the impugned orders dated 17.09.2008, we dispose of the appeals in terms of the interim order quoted above.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ
20-a.asopa/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interim order regarding irrigation water allocation should be made final or quashed.
Balwant Singh & Ors
Diwan Singh & Anr
State & Ors
Indrajit Mahanty
Pushpendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
