Sardool Singh @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

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

“[A] By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order impugned dated 20.10.2014 (Annexure-7) may kindly be declared illegal and the same

may kindly be quashed and set aside.

[B] By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order, thewater turn fixed by the respondents on 16.03.2015 in pursuance of the order dated

20.10.2014, deducting the petitioners water turn of fruit garden, may kindly be declared illegal and quashed and set aside.

[C] By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order, therespondents may kindly be restrained from cancelling additional water turn of the

petitioners’ fruit garden in Killa No.19, 20, 21 of Morabba No.60, and Killa no.2 & 3 of murabba no.61 of Chak 2 P.S.â€​

Admitted facts as available on the record indicate that the petitioners were sanctioned water supply for their fruit gardens located in the Kilas No.19,

20, 21 and 61 of Chak 2 PS, Muraba No.60. Their water supply was discontinued by order (Annexure-2) 27.11.1995 because they could not

successfully establish the fruit gardens as per the requirements of the scheme. Indisputably, the order dated 27.11.1995 was never challenged and has

attained finality. The petitioners claim to have represented to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Sri Ganganagar who, in turn issued a

recommendation letter (Annexure-4) dated 24.08.1996 indicating that the petitioners had successfully improved the fruit orchard/ gardens and thus, the

water supply may be resumed to the fruit gardens in question. The said recommendation was repeated in January, 1998. However, undeniably, no

order resuming/ restoring the water supply to the disputed kilas was ever passed. The petitioners have asserted in the writ petition that the water

supply to their gardens was resumed in the year 1998 and the respondents regularly accepted the water usage charges from the petitioners but

manifestly, no receipt/ slip issued by the competent authority is available on record so as to substantiate this averment. The petitioner Sardool Singh

was selected as the President of the Water Users Association in the year 2010. However, he was allegedly abused his position and thereby, he

managed illegal resumption of water supply to his own fields and also extended additional water supply to other fields without any lawful sanction upon

which, an enquiry was held and finding the allegations to be substantiated, Sardool Singh was suspended from the post of President, Water Users

Association. Sardool Singh unsuccessfully challenged his suspension from such post by way of Writ Petition No.13310/2013 filed before this Court

which was dismissed vide order dated 07.07.2014. However, Sardool Singh managed to get restored to the post of President, Water Users

Association in the year 2014. On this, certain farmers viz. Raj Bhupendra Singh etc. filed a writ petition No.5795/2014 in this Court and the order of

restoration of Sardool Singh on the post of President, Water Users Association was stayed by this Court on 12.09.2014. The said order is still in force.

The petitioners have, by way of this writ petition, prayed for continuance of the water supply to their respective fruit gardens and have assailed the

order dated 20.07.2014 (Annexure-7) whereby, the petitioners’ water turn was discontinued. The petitioners have taken a ground that the water

supply to their fruit gardens was unabatedly being continued under a valid sanction right from the year 1998 and thus, the respondents have acted

arbitrarily an din abhorrence of principles of natural justice while discontinuing the water supply.

Shri C.S. Kotwani, learned counsel representing the petitioners fervently and vehemently drew the Court’s attention to the amended Barabandi

recommendation (Annexure-6) by which, the water supply has been sanctioned for the petitioners’ fruit gardens for the period from December,

2013 to April, 2019 (Annexure-6). He submits that as the petitioners’ gardens have been lawfully included in the Barabandi for six years

commencing from the year 2013, the respondents could not have discontinued the water supply and that too, without providing any opportunity of

hearing and without giving a show-cause notice to the petitioners. On these grounds, Shri Kotwani assailed the impugned action and implored the court

to set aside the impugned order and direct resumption of water supply to the petitioners’ fruit gardens.

The respondent Water Resources Department as well as the private respondents herein have filed counters to the petitioners’ assertions wherein,

a specific plea is raised that after the order (Annexure-2) 27.11.1995 came to be passed discontinuing the water supply to the petitioners fruit gardens,

the supply was never resumed officially as the petitioners did not challenge the order dated 27.11.1995. They urged that recommendations (Annexure4

& 5) dated 24.08.1996 and 28.01.1998 respectively on which, the petitioners harp upon, were procured by using undue influence and rather, when the

Chief Engineer and the Water Resources Department were apprised of this illegal action, the categoric order/ communication (Annexure-7) dated

20.10.2014 was passed in the following terms seeking explanation of the officers concerned:-

“mi;qZDr izlkafxd foâ€k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd vkidh fjiksVZ vuqlkj eq[; vfHk;Urk ty lalk/ku mRrj lEHkkx] guqekux14361 fnukad 27-11-1995 }kjk pd 2 ih-,l- ds eqjCck ua0 60 ds fdyk ua0 19] 20 o 21 rFkk vkns’k Øekad 24454 fnukad 21-03-1996 }kjk blh pd ds

eqjCck ua0 6 ds fdyk ua0 2 o 3 ds fy;s Lohd`r ckx dk vfrfjDr ikuh dkVk x;k FkkA mDr vkns’k dh ikyuk ;fn vHkh rd ugha gqbZ ,oa fdlh l{ke Lrj ls

jksd Hkh ugha gSa rks ikyuk lqfu’pr dh tkosA iwoZ esa eqjCck ua- 60 ds 03-00 ch?kk ckx ds ikuh dks cgky fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa dkj.k Liâ€V

djsaAâ€​

They further urged that the petitioners have illegally managed to get water supply to their gardens without there being any specific order in this regard.

Not only this, the inquiries made by the irrigation authorities in this regard revealed that the water was being supplied not in the fruit gardens but was

also being misused for other purposes. They thus urged that the writ petition is devoid of merit and the petitioners are not entitled to equatable relief.

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

It is not in dispute and is virtually admitted by the petitioners that the orders dated 27.11.1995 and 21.03.1996, by which, the water supply to their fruit

gardens was discontinued were never challenged and have attained finality. Though the petitioners claim that water supply to the fruit gardens in

question was resumed under the recommendations dated 24.08.1996 (Annexure-4) and dated 28.01.1998 (Annexure-5), but such assertion is not

supported by either any receipt of water usage charges or any order passed by the competent authority of the Water Resources/irrigation

Department. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner Sardool Singh, after being appointed as the President of the Water Users Association,

misused his position and was suspended from his post. He used his clout and managed to get the suspension revoked but such revocation order has

been stayed by this Court by order dated 12.09.2014 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5795/2014. Thus, ample material is available on record of

the case to satisfy the Court that Shri Sardool Singh misused his position as the President of the Water Users Association and managed to get

resumed the water supply to the disputed gardens without there being any order of the competent authority of the department. Shri Kotwani advanced

this argument based on the Barbandi (Annexure-6) that the water supply was officially resumed and thus, it has to be presumed that as a corollary,

there would exist a corresponding order of the competent authority for resuming the water supply to the petitioners’ fruit gardens. In order to

verify this assertion, this Court had summoned the original record which was examined with the assistance of the learned Additional Government

Counsel and the Officer Incharge Shri Sanjeev Verma, Executive Engineer, WR Division, Raisingh Nagar and it came to light that no such order was

ever passed nor is available on the record. The assertion made by the petitioners that water supply to their fields was resumed in the year 1998

pursuant to the recommendations (Annexure-4 and 5) dated 24.08.1996 and 28.01.1998 respectively is absolutely false and fabricated. If at all, any

water supply was being drawn by the petitioners during this period then, it was being done illegally. Neither any water usage charges receipts/slips nor

any sanction order has been placed on record by the petitioners to support their case. The order (Annexure-7) dated 20.10.2014 which is assailed in

this writ petition is merely an enquiry made regarding compliance of the orders (Annexure-2) dated 27.11.1995 and (Annexure-3) dated 21.03.1996

whereby, water supply to the petitioners’ fruit gardens was discontinued. If at all, the petitioners were aggrieved of those orders, then they were

required to challenge the same as per law. However, these orders were never challenged and have attained finality.

In view of the facts notice herein above and considering the inexcusable conduct of the petitioner Sardool Singh as narrated supra, this Court is of the

firm opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to equitable relief in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

As an upshot of the above discussion, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.

No order as to cost.