High CourtsDIVISION BENCH

Sukhmandar Singh S/o Shri Bhupendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 23 January 2017 · Citation: (2017) 01 RAJ CK 0043

HON’BLE JUDGES
Govind Mathur, G.R. Moolchandani
CASE NUMBER
51 of 2017

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

36 paragraphs · 324 words
1.

This appeal is preferred to challenge the order dated

22nd of Nov., 2016 passed by learned Single Bench in a batch

of writ petitions challenging the proposed action of the

respondents in endeavoring to alter the existing outlet

adjacent to agriculture field of the appellant-petitioners.

2.

The case of the petitioners before learned Single Bench

was that as per Rule 11(2) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and

Drainage Rules, 1955, no change of whatsoever nature with

mogas/outlets could have been made without having approval

from the State Government. Learned Single Bench while

accepting the writ petition quashed the impugned orders of

the modification and further restrained the respondents from

altering existing mogas/outlets without following the

procedure given under Rule 11(2) of the Rules of 1955. While

doing so, a liberty is given to the Department of Irrigation to

approach the competent authority of the State Government

for issuing sanction to make suitable changes at the disputed

location as per requirements of modernization and then to

proceed further. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant-

petitioners that learned Single Bench though has given an

opportunity to the Department of Irrigation to approach the

State Government to issue sanction for making suitable

changes at the disputed locations as per the requirements of

modernization, but no opportunity is provided to the

petitioners to place their version before the State Government

3.

Having considered the arguments advanced, we are of

the opinion that learned Single Bench set aside the order of

modification being in violation of Rule 11(2) of the Rules of

1955 and directed the Irrigation Department to approach the

State Government just with a view to explain the existing

circumstances. The direction given by learned Single Bench

nowhere restrains the appellants from submitting their view

to the State Government, as such, the appellant-petitioners

are certainly at liberty to submit a representation to the State

Government with their version of facts pertaining to the issue

concerned.