Dismissed

Kuldeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Jul 2024CW/3602/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order denying additional water for fishery due to lack of land title. The Court upheld the impugned order, ruling that title transfer is a sine qua non. The petition was disposed of as there was no illegality in withholding water until mutation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of upholding the impugned order. The stay application stands disposed of.

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:28634]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3602/2022

¶4

Kuldeep Singh S/o Late Shri Balwant Singh, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Chak - 1A Chhoti, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

¶9

The Executive Engineer, Water Resources, South Division, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

¶10

Bhupendra Singh S/o Shri Balwant Singh, R/o 2G, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Mudit Nagpal for
		Mr. Sanjeet Purohit
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. NR Budania Mr. NL Joshi
		Ms. Kirti Pareek
		Mr. MilapChopra,Dy.G.C.

¶13

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

15/07/2024

¶16

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.01.2022, passed by the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No.2).

¶17

The facts narrated precisely are that the petitioner claimed to have a fishery on the agricultural land he was possessed of

[2024:RJ-JD:28634]

[CW-3602/2022]

(2 of 4)

pursuant to an agreement executed by his brother (respondent No.4) in his favour.

¶22

The petitioner moved an application before the respondent – Irrigation Authority to provide additional water supply for carrying on fishery business, which according to section 14 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1954’) is permissible activity for claim of additional water supply.

¶23

The petitioner’s request for grant of additional water supply has been turned down by the Executive Engineer by order dated 20.10.2020, on the ground that the petitioner was not having title of the land in question. He further observed that the brother of the petitioner is the owner of the subject land and he (respondent No.4) has specifically objected to the grant of additional water to the petitioner.

¶24

The petitioner preferred an appeal against said order dated 20.10.2020, passed by the Executive Engineer came to be upheld by the Superintending Engineer vide his order impugned. While dismissing the appeal, the Superintending Engineer clearly provided that once the land is recorded/mutated in petitioner’s name, the request for supply of additional water be considered afresh.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in furtherance of the agreement to sell which the respondent No.4 (petitioner’s brother) executed in petitioner’s favour, the petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance, which has been decreed

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:28634]

[CW-3602/2022]

by the competent Civil Court and execution proceedings are pending.

¶30

Learned counsel submitted that the petition be kept pending until the execution proceedings which are at the fag end are decided.

¶31

Mr. NL Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submitted that the suit for specific performance was decreed exparte against which an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code is filed by his client.

¶32

He submitted that no indulgence be granted to the petitioner, as he does not have any title over the contentious land, which is sine -qua- non for claiming supply of additional water.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶34

Admittedly as of today, the title of the land does not belong to the petitioner and he is only having possessory right pursuant to an agreement to sell executed by the respondent No.4 in his favour.

¶35

Be that as it may. Unless the title of the subject land is transferred to the petitioner by way of registered sale deed or by way of an appropriate order, the petitioner cannot claim supply of additional water under section 14 of the Act of 1954.

¶36

This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the observation made in the order dated 24.01.2022, passed by the Superintending Engineer, who has dismissed the appeal while giving the petitioner a liberty to file a fresh application for supply

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:28634]

[CW-3602/2022]

of additional water for his fishery business, if the land is ultimately recorded/mutated in his name.

¶41

With these observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶42

Needless to observe that if ultimately the sale deed is executed and/or and the land is mutated/recorded in petitioner’s name, he shall be free to move a fresh application for supply of additional water for carrying out fishery business.

¶43

In case, any such application is filed, it will be required of the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶44

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶45

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶46

1-akansha/-

Kuldeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh 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

Rajab Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Lakhveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ambika College Vs National Council for Teacher Education

Bhanwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Adringa Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan