Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Bhupendra Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Gang Canal, North Division and ors.

Bhupendra Singh vs Executive Engineer, Gang Canal, North Division and ors.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Apr 11, 1996
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/762807

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 853 of 1986
Subject
Civil
Disposition
Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Rajasthan Irrigation & Drainage Rules, 1955 - Rule 14--Discontinuity of water supply--No sanction of State Government for supply of water to Fisheries tank beyond 1 year--Held, order to discontinue supply of water injust & proper--15 days time granted to move application to State Government for supply of wat...

Key legal issue
Civil
Outcome / disposition
Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bhupendra Singh

Respondent

Executive Engineer, Gang Canal, North Division and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
1996(2)WLN101

Excerpt

rajasthan irrigation & drainage rules, 1955 - rule 14--discontinuity of water supply--no sanction of state government for supply of water to fisheries tank beyond 1 year--held, order to discontinue supply of water injust & proper--15 days time granted to move application to state government for supply of water;it is an admitted fact that no sanction by the state government was given in the present case for the supply of water to the petitioner-appellant's fisheries tank beyond the period of one year and, therefore, the order annexure 9 passed by the divisional irrigation officer was just and proper which could have been passed under rule 14 of the rules, 1955;since for the last more than fifteen years the appellant- petitioner is running his fish-breeding farm, we, therefore, think it proper to grant fifteen days' time to the appellant- petitioner to move an application under rule 14 of the rules, 1955 to the state government;appeal dismissed - .....court on 4.7.86 was later-on confirmed. as per rule 14 of the rajasthan irrigation and drainnage rules, 1955, the divisional irrigation officer is authorised to make contract for the supply of water for the purposes other than the irrigation for any term not exceeding one year and for the term exceeding one year, the previous sanction of the state government shall be necessary. it is an admitted fact that no sanction by the state government was given in the present case for the supply of water to the petitioner- appellant's fisheries tank beyond the period of one year and, therefore, the order annexure 9 passed by the divisional irrigation officer was just and proper which could have been passed under rule 14 of the rules, 1955.4. while deciding the writ petition, a direction was given to the state government to decide the application, if any, moved by the petitioner before the state government but no such application was moved by the petitioner-appellant before the state government and, therefore, no order could have been passed by the state government. the petitioner-appellant's fisheries farm is still in existence and the water supply to it is being made on the basis of the stay order passed by this court. since for the last more than fifteen years the appellant-petitioner is running his fish-breeding farm, we, therefore, think it proper to grant fifteen days' time to the appellant-petitioner to move an application under rule 14 of the rules, 1955 to the state government through the divisional irrigation officer and the state government will consider such application within the period of two months thereafter and till the disposal of the application, the water supply to the petitioner-appellant's fisheries tank may not stopped.5. with these observations, the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner is dismissed.

Full Judgment

B.R. Arora, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.5.86 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant and directed the State Government to dispose of the petitioner's application, if any pending, within the period of two months and till the period of two months, the status quo, as it existed that day, shall be maintained.

2 Appellant-Petitioner being an unemployed Graduate, in order to establish a fish-breeding farm as a small scale industry, moved an application before the Divisional Irrigation Officer, Gang Canal, North Division, Sri Ganganagar, for sanction of water supply for this purpose and submitted the detailed plan for the establishment of the fish-breeding farm in his land bearing Square No. 20 Kila No. 3 of Chak2-g-I at Sri Ganganagar. The application filed by the petitioner-appellant was allowed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer and vide order dated 18.6.80 he was asked to deposit Rs. 3750/-as the water charges for one year. The supply of water to the fisheries tank of the appellant-petitioner was made by the Irrigation Authorities. After completion of one year, the appellant-petitioner again deposited the amount and the Divisional Irrigation Officer continued the supply of the water to the fisheries tank of the appellant for another year. Thereafter the supply of the water to the fisheries tank of the appellant was stopped vide order Annexure 9 annexed with the writ petition. The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the order Annexure. 9 passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer discontinuing the supply of the water to his fisheries tank. The writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant was dismissed. It is against this judgment dated 7.5.86 that the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. While admitting the appeal, the respondents were directed not to discontinue the water supply to the appellant- petitioner's fisheries tank vide order dated 4.7.86. The adinterim stay order passed by this Court on 4.7.86 was later-on confirmed. As per Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainnage Rules, 1955, the Divisional Irrigation Officer is authorised to make contract for the supply of water for the purposes other than the Irrigation for any term not exceeding one year and for the term exceeding one year, the previous sanction of the State Government shall be necessary. It is an admitted fact that no sanction by the State Government was given in the present case for the supply of water to the petitioner- appellant's fisheries tank beyond the period of one year and, therefore, the order Annexure 9 passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer was just and proper which could have been passed under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1955.

4. While deciding the writ petition, a direction was given to the State Government to decide the application, if any, moved by the petitioner before the State Government but no such application was moved by the petitioner-appellant before the State Government and, therefore, no order could have been passed by the State Government. The petitioner-appellant's fisheries farm is still in existence and the water supply to it is being made on the basis of the stay order passed by this Court. Since for the last more than fifteen years the appellant-petitioner is running his fish-breeding farm, we, therefore, think it proper to grant fifteen days' time to the appellant-petitioner to move an application under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1955 to the State Government through the Divisional Irrigation Officer and the State Government will consider such application within the period of two months thereafter and till the disposal of the application, the water supply to the petitioner-appellant's fisheries tank may not stopped.

5. With these observations, the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial