Dismissed

Jagat Pal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Apr 2023CW/6248/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the construction of a water channel defying a 2018 undertaking to build it parallel to a specific stone line when the land was on the petitioners' land. The court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits since the original work order had expired and no new order existed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jagat Pal Vs State of Rajasthan — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/011423]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6248/2019

¶4

Jagat Pal S/o Lekhram, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Ranjeet Pura, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Engineer, I.g.n.p. (Water Resources Department), Jaipur (Raj.).

¶8

The Executive Engineer, I.g.n.p. (Water Resources Department), Division Ravatsar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶9

The Asstt., I.g.n.p. (Water Resources Department), Circle Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶10

The Superintendent Engineer, I.g.n.p. (Water Resources Department), Circle Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Prashant Tatia
	Mr. Bharat Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG
	Mr. Dhairyaditya Singh

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

¶14

Order

¶15

21/04/2023

¶16

The instant writ petition has been filed with following

¶17

prayers:-

¶18

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that

¶19

the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with cost and by an appropriate order, writ or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to construct the Pakka Khala at stone line 162/363 towards Murba No.12 parallel to stone line as per the sanctioned plan as well as in view of undertaking

(2 of 4)

[2023/RJJD/011423]

[CW-6248/2019]

and order dated 13.08.2018 (Annexure 4) forthwith and;

¶24

Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may kindly be deemed just, fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and his family members are having khatedari command land in chak No.9 RP, Tehsil Hanumangarh, Khata No.136/115, stone No.161/363, K.N. 16 to 25, Murba No.12 stone No.162/363, K.N. 11 to 25, Stone NO.162/364, K.N. 1 to 25 total land ad measuring 17.5810 hectare. The respondents constructed water supply khala in the petitioner’s land bearing stone No.162/363 in side of K. No.15, 16 and 25, which runs north to south. The khala was not constructed according to the sanctioned map i.e. parallel to stone No. 162/363, however, it was constructed in side of K. No.15, 16 and 25 after leaving 12 to 13 feets open land towards eastern side, parallel to stone line of 162/363. The respondents decided to construct pakka khala in place of aforesaid kachha khala. The petitioner presented himself before the concerned authorities including Tehsildar, Department of Revenue, Hanumangarh on 30.04.2018 and submitted an application to that extent and upon submission of the application by the petitioner to the Tehsildar, he sought a site report from Patwari and Girdawar. Thereafter, petitioner and his family members preferred an application under Section 24 of Gram Nyayalay Act, 2008 before the competent Court and prayed to allow the application. However, both the parties present before the Court agreed to construct a Pakka khala at sanctioned place parallel to stone No. 162/363 without leaving

[2023/RJJD/011423]

[CW-6248/2019]

(3 of 4)

open land measuring 12 feets towards eastern side. Thereafter, an an undertaking was given by the respondents in writing on 13.08.2018 that the consent/compromise application may kindly be accepted and the suit may be disposed of accordingly. The said undertaking was recorded and accepted by the court below.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the respondents have given the undertaking in writing on 13.08.2018 (Annexure-3), then, it is obligatory upon them to comply with the same and construct the khala as per the undertaking. 4. Learned AAG Mr. Pankaj Sharma vehemently opposes the submission and submits that the work undertaken by the respondent is already over which is substantiated by a bare perusal of Annexure R/2, communication dated 06.10.2021 wherein it has been specifically stated that the date of starting of the work was 02.04.2018 and the completion date was 01.09.2018. It has been further mentioned in the communication that the work has to be completed in accordance with the undertaking given by the respondents but the same could not be completed by the respondents in absence of the earmarking which ought to have been done by the Department of Revenue.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that though the work given by IGNP is over however, the respondents may be directed to comply with its undertaking given by them on 13.08.2018 as and when afresh work order by IGNP is issued. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the fact that the work order which had been issued by the

¶33

[2023/RJJD/011423]

¶34

[CW-6248/2019]

¶35

respondents is over and the work was to be completed on 01.09.2018 but, as on today, no work has been issued by the respondents and no work is in progress in pursuance of the earlier work order which was issued by the respondents.

¶36

This Court cannot give directions to the respondents in anticipation that as and when any N.I.T. is issued for completion of the work, if any remained the same be completed by the respondents as per the undertaking given by them on 13.08.2018. 9. The writ petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.

¶37

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶38

109-amit/-

Jagat Pal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jagat Pal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Barasa Vs State of Rajasthan

Mool Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Satya Narayan Vs Askaran Singh

Lokendra Pal Singh Vs Jai Narain Vyas University,Jodhpur and Ors.

Harshita Ramina Vs Director, Board of Secondary Edu.

M/S Shree Shiv Jyoti Enterprises Pvt. Limited Vs State of Rajasthan