Dismissed

Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Aug 2024CW/3191/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a writ petition challenging construction over a water channel. The Court accepted that an under-bridge was built, redressing the primary grievance. Finding the issue of water supply volume to be a disputed question of facts not within writ jurisdiction, the petition and stay application were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Stay application dismissed. Petitioners free to raise grievance on water quantity before competent authorities.

Mohan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:34722]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3191/2023

¶4

Mohan Lal S/o Sh. Krishan Lal, Aged About 30 Years.

¶5

Shishpal S/o Sh. Madan Lal, Aged About 42 Years.

¶6

Mohan Lal S/o Sh. Rekha Ram, Aged About 56 Years. 4. Daulat Ram S/o Sh. Kagharam, Aged About 40 Years. 5. Anant Ram S/o Sh. Dallu Ram, Aged About 63 Years. 6. Mahendra S/o Sh. Budhram, Aged About 55 Years. 7. Pala Ram S/o Sh. Hazari Ram, Aged About 45 Years. 8. Mahendra S/o Sh. Chandu Ram, Aged About 45 Years. 9. Hemraj S/o Sh. Mangtu Ram Sharma, Aged About 45 Years.

¶7

Omprakash S/o Sh. Rawatram, Aged About 60 Years. 11. Aaidan S/o Sh. Puran Ram, Aged About 35 Years. All R/o Chak 31-Ndr, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.

¶11

The Executive Engineer Water Resources Division Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.

¶12

The Superintending Engineer Water Resources Circle Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.

¶13

The Chief Engineer Water Resources North Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.

¶14

The Chief Engineer Water Resources, Indira Ganchi Nahar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶15

The Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Hanumangarh, 191, Court Road, Near City Police Station, Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh Khosa on behalf of Mr. H.S. Sidhu

¶18

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG with

[2024:RJ-JD:34722]

[CW-3191/2023]

(2 of 3)

Mr. Rajendra Singh Mr. Vinit Sanadhya Mr. Milap Chopra

¶23

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶24

Order

¶25

22/08/2024

¶26

Mr. Vinit Sanadhya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – National Highway Authority of India at the outset submitted that the petitioners’ grievance has been duly redressed, inasmuch as, under-bridge has been provided while constructing the National Highway.

¶27

So far as reduction or adverse impact on water supply is concerned, on perusal of the record, this Court finds that by proceedings dated 20.04.2023, the respondents were given time to file categorical affidavit on various counts.

¶28

An affidavit/response has been filed by the respondent – Irrigation Department in which it has been asserted that the petitioners’ water supply has not been reduced.

¶29

Mr. Pradeep Singh Khosa, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as a counter to above affidavit, an additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioners and according to them, water facilities have not been reduced or impacted adversely.

¶30

In the opinion of this Court, the basic grievance raised by the petitioners, has been redressed by the respondents by constructing under-bridge. So far as issue about reduction of water supply is concerned, it involves highly disputed question of facts, which cannot be gone into by this Court in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

(3 of 3) [CW-3191/2023]

¶32

[2024:RJ-JD:34722]

¶33

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶34

The petitioners shall, however, be free to raise their grievance relating to the quantity of water before the competent authorities of the respondent – Irrigation Department.

¶35

Stay application also stands dismissed, accordingly.

¶36

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶37

11-Mak/-

Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Allah Noor Vs State of Rajasthan

Gram Panchayat, Kalyan Singh Ki Sidd, Panchayat Samiti Bap Vs State of Rajasthan

Amba Ram Vs Lrs of Mitha Khan

Ram Chandra Vs the Board of Revenue

Bhagirath Ram and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Jodhpur Municipal Corporation Jodhpur Vs Govind Puri