Judgment:
SARVAJEET SINGH VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8388/11) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER
SARVAJEET SINGH VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8388/11) Dated:- 16th March, 2015. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr.L.S.Jodha, for the petitioner. Mr.S.M.Toshniwal, Additional Government Counsel. Mr.B.S.Sandhu, for respondent No.4 & 5. Mr.H.R.Chawla, for respondent No.6 & 7.
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 20.7.2011 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Shri Vijaynagar, whereby the order dated 31.1.2011 passed by the Executive Engineer, Anoopgarh Branch, Water Resources Division-I, Shri Vijaynagar has been set aside and the agriculturists of Square No.209/455, 211/456 and 211/457 have been held entitled to equal benefit of residual water.
2. The relevant facts are that the agriculture lands of the petitioner, respondents No.4 & 5 and respondents No.6 & 7 are situated at Chak No.9 ASB in Square No.209/455, Square No.211/456 and Square No.211/457, respectively. The petitioner, an agriculturist having 12.5 bighas land in Square No.209/455, at the tail end of the water course, preferred an application to the Executive Engineer, Anoopgarh Branch for fixing his turn for residual water. Similarly, the respondent No.6-Gurmej Singh also made an application claiming for fixing his turn for residual water. The Executive Engineer, vide order dated 28.6.2000 held SARVAJEET SINGH VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8388/11) 2 that the agriculturist of Square No.211/457 would be entitled for residual water for the year 2000-2001. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources, Sri Vijaynagar. The Appellate Authority affirmed the order dated 28.6.2000 passed by the Executive Engineer as aforesaid. The respondents No.4 & 5 having the agriculture land in Square No.211/456, preferred an application before the Appellate Authority for setting aside the order passed against them ex-parte. The application preferred was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.11.10 and the matter was remanded to the Executive Engineer for consideration afresh. The Executive Engineer, vide order dated 31.1.11 held that since the Square No.209/455 is situated at the end of single branch and the Squares No.211/456 and 211/457 are situated at yet another branch, the agriculturist of Square No.209/455, the petitioner herein, shall get the benefit of residual water for four years. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents No.4 & 5 herein, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Sri Vijaynagar. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal vide order dated 20.7.11 holding that the agriculturists of Square No.209/455, 211/456 and 211/457 each will get the benefit of residual water for a period of two years turn wise. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land of the petitioner situated in Square No.209/455 is getting water SARVAJEET SINGH VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8388/11) 3 facility from single branch and the land of the respondents No.4 & 5 and the respondents No.6 & 7 situated in Square No.211/456 and 211/457 respectively are getting water facility from yet another branch. It is submitted that the benefit of the residual water has to be extended on the basis of the branches and not on the basis of the different squares and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Superintending Engineer ignoring the norms laid down for entitlement of residual water is ex-facie illegal and arbitrary. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the Clause 5.07 of the Guidelines issued for regulating co- ordinated water distribution.
4. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 & 5 submitted that there are two branches at the tail of the water course at equal distance; one goes to the petitioner's square and another to the respondents' squares, and thus, the agriculturists of all the three squares at the tail end of the water course, whose land are situated at equal distance are entitled for equal share of residual water. Learned counsel submitted that in this regard Sub-Clause (1) of Clause 5.07 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is self- explanatory. Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned passed by the Superintending Engineer is in conformity with the guidelines issued for distribution of the residual water and therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. SARVAJEET SINGH VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8388/11) 4 5. Learned Additional Government Counsel and the counsel appearing for the respondents No.6 & 7 have adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents No.4 & 5 as aforesaid.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. The controversy involved in the matter rolls around Clause 5.07 of the “Barabandi Guidelines”., which may be beneficially quoted: “5,07 न क ल-कच ख ल व ल क म न क ल क समय पन मरब 10 मम ट क ट ज ह ए। एक पकक ख ल क! सर" न कल कवल 5 मम ट पन मरब # कट ज क फ! ग ख ल क न क ल क ल भ क क ख ल क! स स लम ( श ख क ह*य ज ह ए। ज + एक # मरब म एक स अध.क क/षक क ( न क ल क ववव * व + उ क कत क अ प स र# न क ल ह*य ज क! वयवस7 क! ज सक ( 8 । 1. ककस( क म यह* अध.क म लम ई क! * य अध.क ख ल श ख ए+ सम *र" # क! , न क ल उ क! टल पर पड व ल मरब क र#- र# स ह*य ज व। 2. यह* स स लम ( श ख /श ख ओ= क! टल पर सस7 मरब /मरब न कल #= ल टल क मरब /मरब स ऊपर व ल प ल मरब /मरब क क/षक क न क ल ह*य ज व यह* ऐस मरब /मरब क क/षक भ( न क ल ल , न क ल क! (ल म( कर, न क ल स स अध.क न क ल समय स म व ल क/षक/क/षक क ह*य ज व व समय क! कन पन" A टल क क* र मरब /मरब क क/षक स क! ज व।" (emphasis supplied) 8. It is to be noticed that the squares of the petitioner and the respondents situated at the tail end, are getting irrigation facility from two branches of equal distance and thus, the distribution of residual water to all the three squares at tail end shall be governed by Sub-Clause (1) of Clause 5.07 which provides that if in a Chak two or more branches of maximum length are at the equal distance, the benefit of residual water to SARVAJEET SINGH VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8388/11) 5 the squares at the tail end, shall be given turn wise. In this view of the matter, all the three squares which are at the tail end of the water course, getting the irrigation facility by the branches of equal distance, are entitled to benefit of residual water equally turn wise. Merely because, at one of the branch, there is only one square and at the other branch of the equal distance, there are two squares, the agriculturist getting the facility of residual water at the branch having one square cannot claim extra benefit without there being any justifiable reason for the same. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the Appellate Authority appears to be in conformity with the guidelines issued by the State Government for distribution of residual water and appears to be just and fair.
9. No case for interference by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
10. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J.
Aditya/