Disposed

Sarla v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 May 2023CW/3564/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a direction to the Executive Engineer of Water Resources to consider the petitioners representation regarding their irrigation land status within two months, relying on a coordinate bench decision concerning command land status.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Suratgarh Branch, District Sri Ganganagar to consider the representation within two months.

Sarla Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/015552]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3564/2022

¶4

Sarla D/o Shri Roopchand, W/o Sh. Mahendra Singh, Aged About 56 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Ward No. 12, Anoopgarh, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶5

Smt. Manju Bala D/o Shri Roopchand, W/o Sh. Balwaan Singh, Aged About 50 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Ward No. 12, Anoopgarh, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶6

Smt. Gudiya W/o Shri Deewan Singh, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Chak - 1 Uss, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

The District Collector, Sri Ganganagar.

¶11

The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶12

The Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Suratgarh Branch, Division Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dron Kaushik

¶15

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶16

Order

¶17

16/05/2023

¶18

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a limited prayer made by the petitioner that the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Suratgarh Branch, Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner as early as possible.

[2023/RJJD/015552]

[CW-3564/2022]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Suratgarh Branch, Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar, but the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Suratgarh Branch, Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar has not considered the representation till date. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Krishan Kumar V/s State of Rajasthan decided on 13.04.2012. This Court in Krishan Kumar’s case (supra) has held as under:-

¶23

“8. Indisputably, the allotment of the land in question in favour of the petitioner’s predecessor was made as command land by the competent authority after charging the price as required to be paid for irrigation land. It is also a common ground between the parties that the since the land allotted was command land, the irrigation facility was extended to it up to the year 1983. In this view of the matter, the irrigation authorities had no jurisdiction to consider the command land to be uncommond land on their own. As a matter of fact, while deciding the representation made by the petitioner, the respondent authority has proceeded with the presumption that the land in question is uncommond land and the same cannot be converted into command land inasmuch as the adequate water is not available in Anoopgarh Branch of the canal. In considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner’s land which was command land when initially allotted could not have been treated to be uncommand land by the irrigation authorities. Thus, the respondent authority has committed an error in treating the land to be uncommand land. 9. The land held by the petitioner being command land the respondent authorities are under obligation to take appropriate steps to provide the irrigation facilities to the said land. The respondent authority has to consider the petitioner’s demand for supply of the water in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 and the Rules made thereunder.”

[2023/RJJD/015552]

[CW-3564/2022]

(3 of 3)

In the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction that the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Suratgarh Branch, Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar shall consider the representation along with the documents filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶28

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶29

93-Zeeshan

Sarla v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarla v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Rcpl-Sbhh (Jv) Vs State of Rajasthan

Akha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Hasan Ali Vs Shree Ram Singh Vishnoi

Deep Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhanna Ram Vs Board of Rev

Virender Singh Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited