Kulwant Singh @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this court with the following prayers :-

“(i) By appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned judgment dated 14.12.2015 (Annexure-6), order dated 17.12.15 (Annexure-7) and

judgment dated 16.05.16 (Annexure-10) may kindly be declared arbitrary and illegal and consequently be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That respondent No.2 may be given Khal Khichai asper his turn in accordance with the Bharai Khichai Chart Plan.

(iii) That the petitioner may be allowed the cost of Writ Petition.â€​

The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the irrigation authorities have reversed the order of priority while assigning turn of “Khal Khichaiâ€

upon the petitioner. Referring to the Rajasthan Canal Project Guidelines, 1978 issued by the State Government and more particularly, the clause

No.5.10.2 thereof, Dr. Kharlia urged that the turn of “Khal Khichai†has to be fixed by sequence amongst the cultivators, who are located on the

different sides of a particular stone. Drawing the court’s attention to the chak plan Annex.1, Dr. Kharlia urged that fields of Aadram and Savitri

Devi are located towards left of the stone, whereas the field of Kulwant Singh, the present petitioner, is located to the right thereof. He urged that

the job of “Khal Khichai†involving immense labour was assigned upon the petitioner Kulwant Singh from the year 1994 to 2006. Thereafter

Savitri Devi did the “Khal Khichai†from the year 2006 onwards. Thus, as per Dr. Kharlia, the next turn of “Khal Khichai†have to be

logically as per the prevailing rules assigned to Aadram, but rather than doing so, the irrigation authorities have thrust upon this burden the petitioner,

thereby changing the order of priority.  He, thus, implore the court to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction and quash the impugned order.Â

Per contra, Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, AGC, representing the Water Resources Department, Mr. B.S. Sandhu and Mr. Sushil Bishnoi,

representing the private respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by Dr. Kharlia. They urged that Aadram owns 15 bighas, wheras

Savitri Devi owns 10 bighas of land in the same Muraba. The turns of “Khal Khichai†are assigned Muraba-wise and are fixed sequentially as

per sides of the Muraba in reference to the Naka in question.

They urged that Kulwant Singh was assigned the “Khal Khichai†from the year 1994 to 2006. Thereafter, for the next 11 years, Aadram and

Savitri Devi have been doing the “Khal Khichai†and as such, logically as per the requirement of the Rules and since the respective fields are

located to the left and right respectively of the Nakas in question, the next turn of “Khal Khichai†had to be fixed of Kulwant Singh, which is

precisely the direction given in the impugned orders. They, thus, crave dismissal of the writ petition.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and gone through the material available on record. Ex facie, the

argument advanced by the petitioner’s counsel Dr. Kharlia does not seem tenable and palpable. Apparently, the turns of the “Khal

Khichaiâ€, which involves the exercise of pulling water from a certain distance is applicable to the areas, where the levels of fields are higher. Thus,

turns are to be fixed by rotation in terms of the guidelines relied upon by Dr. Kharlia and the counsel for the respondents. Thus, what is to be

considered in this writ petition is as to whether the irrigation authorities were justified in fixing the turn of “Khal Khichai†upon the petitioner for

the current period in reference to these guidelines or not.

It cannot be denied that two competent authorities of the Irrigation Department having expertise and technical knowledge in this regard have

elaborated in detail the entire gamut of facts and came to a conclusion that the “Khal Khichai†from the year 2015 onwards had to be fixed upon

the petitioner. The discussion made by the Executive Engineer at the concluding part of the impugned order dated 14.12.2015 (Annex.6) is reproduced

hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference :-Â

1- Jheku v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk ds fu.kZ; fnukad 27-05-2015 ds vuqlkj izHkkford`â€kdksa dks lquokbZ dk volj nsrs gq, of.kZr [kky Hkjk;h cksyh ds vk/kkj ij r; djus ds

funsZ’kksa dh vuqikyuk ij lquokbZ ds nkSjku izLrko j[kus ij Jh vknjke dqy Hkjk;h le; 30 feuV esa flapkbZ djus ds fy, rS;kj Fkk] ysfdu ‘ksâ€k nksuksa d`â€kd

cksyh ds vk/kkj ij [kky Hkjk;h r; djus esa lger ugha Fks mudh ekax gd vuqlkj [kky Hkjk;h r; djus dh jghA vr% cksyh ds vk/kkj ij [kky Hkjk;h dk fu.kZ; ugha fd;k tk ldrk

gSA

2- fnukad 28-05-1990 ls 06-06-1994 rd [kky Hkjk;h ukds ij ck;a h rjQ dqyoUr flag }kjk vknjke dh ckjh esa ls 10 feuV ysdj dqy 30 feuV esa [kky Hkjk;h

dh x;hA pwafd vknjke }kjk viuh ckjh esa ls 10 feuV fn;s x;s gSA vr% ;g VuZ vknjke dk ekuk tkosxk ftldk jdck 15 ch?kk ukds ij nk;h rjQ ds eqjCcs

esa iM+rk gSA

3- fnukad 06-06-1994 ls 05-11-2006 rd [kky Hkjk;h dqyoUr flag } kjk dh x;h gS] ftldk jdck 25 ch?kk gS rFkk ukds ij cka;h rjQ eqjCck gSA

4- fnukad 06-11-2006 ls vkt rd lkfo=h nos h oxSjg }kjk [kky Hkjk;h dh tk jgh gSA ftudk jdck ukds ij 10 ch?kk nk;s eqjCcs esa iM+rk gSA

5- bl izdkj i-ua- 1 MCY;w@134 ls 1 MCY;w@135 rd dh [kky Hkjk;h ukdk iRFkj 1 MCY;w@135 ij 1990 ls 1994 rd nk;a h rjQ] 1994 ls 2006 rd cka;h

rjQ rFkk 2006 ls vkt rd nka;h rjQ ds eqjCcs }kjk dh x;h gSA vc ifjorZu ij VuZ ck;h rjQ ds eqjCcs dk vkrk gS tks dqyoUr flag@ fofp= flag dk gSA

This court is duly satisfied with the reasoning assigned by the Executive Engineer in the order dated 14.12.2015 appeals to logic and the controversy

was adjudicated by him in absolutely objective manner. The appellate authority while considering the appeal reaffirmed the directions given by the

Executive Engineer vide order Annex.10 dated 16.05.2016 and rightly did so in the opinion of this court.

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this court is convinced with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by two competent authorities of the

Irrigation Department having quasi judicial powers who discussed in detail, the entire gamut of facts and came to a rational and logical conclusion

regarding the petitioner’s liability to perform the “Khal Khichai†for a period of 6 years from the year 2015 onwards. I find no reason to

exercise the extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon this court by Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to interfere therein. Hence, the

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