Disposed

Inderjeet Singh v. State Irrigation and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Nov 2021CW/794/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging reduction of outlet size and change in dimensions without notice and hydro-survey. Court directed respondents to carry out changes ensuring petitioner's sanctioned water volume is not reduced.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to carry out changes/amendments ensuring sanctioned volume of water of the petitioner is not reduced. Pending applications disposed of.

Inderjeet Singh Vs State Irrigation… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 794/2012

Inderjeet Singh

----Petitioner

Versus

The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. R.D.S.S. Kharlia For Respondent(s) : Ms. Abhilasha Bora with Ms. Saloni Malpani

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Order

¶11

24/11/2021

¶12

This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

¶13

“(i) By appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned letter dated 23.11.11 (Annexure-1), letter dated 2.12.11 (Annexure-2) and Proposal form (Annexure-3) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) By appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may kindly be directed not to change or reduce the size of the outlet of Chak 6-O(B) and the respondents may be directed to conduct fresh hydrosurvey of O Distributary and only to make change if it is needful.

¶14

(iii) That by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to maintain the full supply level of the water at the head of outlet of Chak 6-O(B) according to the design and capacity of O Distributary and the respondents may further be directed not to reduce the size of the outlet of Chak 6-

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

O(B) till the working head of the outlet is maintained as per Pakka construction.

¶17

(iv) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may kindly be directed to be bound and adhere to the Rajasthan Farmer’s Participation in the Management of Irrigation System Act, 2000.

¶18

(v) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent may be directed not to change the size of the outlet without giving an opportunity of hearing and filing objection as per Rule 11(3) of the Rules 1955.”

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that outlets are being changed without jurisdiction against Section 17 of the Rajasthan Farmers’ Participation in Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000 and without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the affected parties.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 17 of the Act of 2000, the respondents did not issue any notice to the shareholders of the Chak in question before amending the size of the outlet and inviting objections by a written order; the petitioner was one of such shareholders.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the size of the petitioner’s outlet was going to be reduced without conducting of fresh hydro-survey. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents however, submits that Section 17 of the Act of 2000 does not apply in the present case, as neither the place nor the size of the outlet is going to change, and thus, there was no requirement of issuance of any notice.

¶22

Looking into the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents and the fact that the present petition is pending since

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

2012, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to carry out any changes/amendments, while ensuring that the sanctioned volume of water of the present petitioners will not be reduced. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶25

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶26

134-SKant/-

Inderjeet Singh v. State Irrigation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inderjeet Singh v. State Irrigation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman Swami Vs State and Anr.

Kishan Lal Soni Vs Shri Nagrik Shiksha Samiti

Smt. Marudhar Kanwar Vs State and Ors.

Lalas Lrs and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Vs Management, Shiv Mandir Committee (D.T.)

Jasvindra Singh and Anr. Vs Stat E and Ors.