Jagat Pal @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have approached this court with the following prayers :-

“A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to not to sanction any minor or major canal from the land

in question i.e. the land of the petitioners.

B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, therespondents may kindly be directed to shift the LK Head from point ‘X’ to point ‘A’ and

‘B’ to reduce the length of LK Minor and to join the LK Minor at point ‘Y’ as mentioned in Map (Annex.2).

C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction therespondents may kindly be directed to not to construct/renovate tor do any modernization of the LK

Minor from point ‘X’ to point ‘Y’ as mentioned in Map (Annex.2).

D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, therespondents may kindly be directed to remove and desanction or de-notify the existing the LK Minor

from point ‘X’ to point ‘Y’ as mentioned in Map (Annex.2).â€​

It may be stated here that the prayers referred to supra relate to major changes in the water course of the LK Minor. Through the Jamabandis and a

map (Annex.2) presented with the writ petition, the petitioners have made an attempt to demonstrate that the respondents are in the purported

exercise of constructing/repairing the canal in question causing direct interference in the rights of the petitioners herein to cultivate their agriculture

fields as per their rights and thus, the impugned action is indirectly an attempt to breach their fundamental rights. The petitioners have made an

assersion that if the respondents are not directed to change the course of the LK Minor Canal, which passes through the petitioners’ fields, then

the perennial problem of seepage will continue, resulting into serious problem of water logging in the petitioners’ fields and thereby rendering their

fields incultivable.Â

The respondents have filed a pertinent reply to the writ petition, wherein it is asserted that the petitioners’ prayer amounts to restraining the Water

Resources Department of the State of Rajasthan from carrying out repairs in the existing canal system, which was earlier Kachchha in nature and is

in the process of being made permanent. The entire attempt of the petitioners to stall the said exercise has been branded as being vested in nature

and contrary to public interest. A specific plea is made in the reply that the canal LK Minor is decades old and requires repair and that the

petitioners’ prayer to stall such repair and to rather change the entire course of the existing channel system is detrimental to public interest. The

plea put forth by the petitioners that by the change in the course of water channel suggested by them would in any manner alleviate the problem of

seepage and salt deposition, is opposed as being based on conjectures. The authorities claim to have collected scientific data before commencing

the work in question. The work disputed involves repair/renovation, i.e. modernization of the LK Minor by removing old tiles and installing fresh

tiles, which as per the respondents will result into reduction of water losses and leakages and thereby indirectly controlling the problem of

seapage/water logging, which the petitioners are facing. It is further stated that the suggestive measures in the petitioners’ writ petition have no

sanctity whatsoever because the same are not based on any scientific data. The petitioners representations were considered thoroughly and only

thereafter, the authorities have reached to a conclusion regarding the repair of the canal being essential. The petitioners’ plea has also been

opposed as the same amounts to curtailing the crystallised irrigation rights of the concerned agriculturists of LK Minor.Â

It is further mentioned at para No.2 of the reply that the Lakhuwali Minor (LK Minor), which originates from RD 24.150 of the Ranjeetpura Minor of

main Indira Gandhi Canal indeed passes through the petitioners’ lands, but the same is in existence for the last more than 40 years. It was

constructed by fixing permanent tiles etc. but with the passage of time and due to wear and tear, the same has become damaged and scarred. Thus,

the competent authorities have taken a decision to modernize the same from RD 0.000 to 24.150 and and also from this point upto LK Minor RD

0.000 to 18.250. The plea of the petitioners to close the existing canal and to direct the same through a different location has been questioned on the

ground that the lands which are being irrigated from the canal were declared as command areas when the capacity of the canal was determined.Â

By the suggested modes, the petitioners have requested for changes/additions in the command area, which is not possible looking to the limited

quantity of water available.Â

The petitioners have filed a rejoinder annexing therewith certain additional maps and the chak sheets etc. in an attempt to claim that a very few

Moghas are now in existence on the LK Minor and thus, the same has lost significance.

Mr. Sajjan Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioners, vehemently urged that the questioned canal named as LK Minor passes through the

fields of the petitioners. He urged that the canal exists since long, but the same has become dilapidated/damaged by passage of time. The only

rational exercise for the competent authority would be to change the course of canal so as to ensure that the water logging problem being faced by the

petitioners because of the faulty canal design/location can be resolved. He drew the court’s attention to numerous photographs etc. and maps

prepared at the behest of the petitioners in order to buttress that water supply to a few fields which are likely to be effected by the suggestive change

in the course of the LK Minor can be directly ensured from the Indira Gandhi Canal and the RP Minor. He urges that these changes suggested by

the petitioners are more feasible and viable for the betterment of the irrigation system of the entire area and therefore, this court should be persuaded

to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction and direct the respondents not to proceed with the repair of the existing LK Minor and instead shorten its

length so as to save the fields of the petitioners from the perennial problem of water logging and salt deposition.

Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, learned A.G.C., assisted by Mr. D.R. Kawadia, learned Dy.G.C., vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by

the petitioners’ counsel and urged that the endeavour of the petitioners to seek change in the course of the existing LK Minor canal amounts to

direct interference in the policy making powers of the competent State authorities. As per Mr. Rajpurohit, such an exercise is impermissible while

exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court. He further urged that the canal admittedly exists at the same location since last more than

40 years. The petitioners started raising the grievance against the existing canal only in the recent past when the authorities decided that the same

needed repair. He referred to the application/affidavits filed by the farmers of Chaks 2LK and 4LK, wherein they have opposed the endeavour of

the petitioners in attempting to stop the repairs of the LK Minor and to seek a change in its alignment/course. These farmers, who are almost 15 in

number, have categorically demanded that water supply to their fields should be continued through the LK Minor only after repairs thereof. They

have further categorically mentioned that they have never filed any application to the authorities for altering the course of water being supplied to their

fields. Mr. Sajjan Singh in the rejoinder referred to additional affidavit of the petitioner Jagat Pal and few documents including Chak plan and an

additional map and urged that as per the information supplied to the petitioners, a very few number of Moghas now remain in the LK Minor and these

Moghas can very well be irrigated from RP Minor directly.Â

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advances at bar and have gone through the material available on record.

Manifestly, the entire attempt of the petitioners through this writ petition is to seek change in the course of the existing LK Minor, a sub-tributary of

the Ranjeetpura Minor canal of the IGNP. It is not in dispute that the canal which the petitioners desire removal of is in existence for last 40 years.Â

The respondent Water Resources Department is the only competent body, which can decide regarding the feasibility, viability and the course of water

canal. While petitioners on the one hand being 9 in number have sought a direction for closure of the existing tributaries and have prayed that the

Moghas existing on the said canal should be directly connected with RP Minor, whereas large number of farmers of Chaks 2LK and 4LK have

submitted applications/affidavits (Annex.2) to the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Rawatsar demanding repair of the existing LK

Minor and have prayed for continuance of water supply to their fields through the existing system. In view of these facts and since the respondents

have duly demonstrated that the LK Minor was constructed almost 40 years ago and as the same has been successfully used for irrigation of various

fields in the Chaks 2LK and 4LK, the entire endeavour of the petitioners in attempting to seek changes in the course of the canal/removal thereof is

absolutely untenable. The affidavit of the petitioner Jagat Pal filed on 17.02.2018, with which few photographs have been annexed, clearly indicates

that the work of enlarging the existing canal permanent has already been commenced and the water channel is being relaid with fresh tiles and

cement. The grievance of the petitioners regarding their fields suffering from water logging is of course justified. However, it is precisely to

eradicate and allienate this problem that the entire exercise of renovation/renewal of the canal has been undertaken. However, by no stretch of

imagination, can the petitioners be allowed to dictate the terms in which the water supply system should be operated. This decision being a policy

matter falls exclusively within the doman of the respondent Water Resources Department, the competent authorities whereof have duly considered

the facts and circumstances and scientific data and have found the repairing of the existing LK Minor canal to be viable and feasible. Any

interference in this decision of competent authorities would amount to a direct interference in the policy making powers of the respondent authorities

and as such, this court is lease convinced to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction so as to interfere therein.Â

In this background, while directing the respondents to ensure that the problem of water logging in the fields of the petitioners and their likes is resolved

forthwith, the instant writ petition as well as the stay petition are dismissed as being devoid of merit.

No order as to costs.