Baldeo Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

"(i) The order impugned dated 28/30.04.2009 (Annexure-9) may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The application so preferred on behalf of the petitioner may kindly be allowed as prayed for;

(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted and

(iv) The cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner."

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for sanction of additional pipe in the Irrigation Department for the purpose of dairy farm. When the respondents had removed the additional pipe sanctioned for the dairy purpose, the petitioner filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4087/1995 (Baldeo Singh Vs. State & Anr.), which was decided by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.05.2006 directing as under:-

"The writ petition, is therefore, disposed of with a direction to Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Hanumangarh to decide the application submitted by the petitioner for utilizing 3" diameter pipe in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within the period of two months from today. No orders as to cost."

In compliance of the direction passed by this Court on 15.05.2006, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources (North), Hanumangarh Sangam vide its order dated 28.04.2009 decided the case of the petitioner and ordered for removal of additional pipe. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.04.2009, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Chief Engineer is against the facts and law involved in the matter. Counsel submitted that according to report submitted by the Executive Engineer, there are 567 animals in the dairy farm of the petitioner. The said report was prepared in the year 1995. The respondent No.2 in the order impugned has wrongly accepted that 14 animals were there in the dairy farm of the petitioner and passed order to discontinue water supply by removing additional pipes. Lastly, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Chief Engineer be quashed and set aside.

Counsel for the respondents supported the judgment passed by the Chief Engineer dated 28.04.2009 and submitted that in compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 15.05.2006, the Superintending Engineer himself inspected the site of the petitioner and found that neither there were animals for dairy nor any dairy was running on the spot. Counsel further submitted that the Superintending Engineer inspected the site and found that petitioner is using 3" diameter pipe instead of sanction of 1.5" diameter pipe. It was further stated that there was no dairy farm and petitioner was using water for agricultural purposes.

Counsel for the respondents further submitted that since the petitioner was getting illegal water, which was adversely affecting the tailenders. Hence, the Chief Engineer considering the reports submitted by the officers of the Department rightly ordered for removing of additional pipes from the fields of the petitioner. Against the claim of the petitioner i.e. 567 animals, the Superintending Engineer found that only 14 animals are there. Counsel submits that the order passed by the Chief Engineer dated 28.04.2009 is just and proper; and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons: firstly, the socalled inspection report which was prepared in the year 1995 showing 567 animals, has no legal force as the Superintending Engineer again inspected the site and found that only 14 animals were there and no dairy was running on the spot. Even, the shades and diggi were also not found on the spot. Secondly, by removing the additional pipe, the farmers situated at the tail end of the canal would be benefited. Thirdly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to exercise the extra ordinary power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In that view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.