1 SBCWP No.4690/08 & 9 others IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R 1. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4690/2008 Bagh Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4691/2008 Dalu Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 3. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4694/2008 Loon Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 4. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4695/2008 Magan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.. 5. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4696/2008 Ajmal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 6. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4700/2008 Phoos Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 7. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4713/2008 Durjan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 8. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4739/2008 Hari Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 9. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4974/2008 Bhojraj Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 10. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4975/2008 Mitthu Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 14.05.2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr.Anil Kumar Singh & Vinod Sharma, for the petitioners. Mr.K.R.Saran, Dy.Govt.Counsel for the respondents. 2 SBCWP No.4690/08 & 9 others BY THE COURT: All these writ petitions involve common question of law and facts and therefore, they are being heard and decided together by this common order. The facts stated in Writ Petition No.4690/2008 are taken as leading case. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petitions are that the petitioners were granted water facility by installing the syphons at R.D. 825 (L) for cultivating their land. According to the petitioners, they have been cultivating their land for last more than 15 years uninterrruptedly under the valid sanction for installation of the syphons. The petitioners came with a case that they were having 3 syphons of 3 inch in size each which is situated at R.D. 825 (L). There had been some writ petitions filed by the agriculturalists and in reply thereto, the Executive Engineer produced a list wherein it has been stated that the petitioners were having only sanction of 1 syphon of 3 inch in size each whereas the petitioners have installed 3 syphons at the site. The respondent-Superintending Engineer passed the order Annexure-10 dated 1st May, 2008 in compliance of the direction of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4886/2007; Bagh Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 3rd March, 3 SBCWP No.4690/08 & 9 others 2008. Being aggrieved by the order Annexure-10, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were granted water facility to irrigate the land by installing the syphons. So far as the petitioners-Bagh Singh and Sumer Singh are concerned, the order sanctioning to install 1 syphon of 3 inch in size each came to be passed by the Superintending Engineer vide order SSC-I/5015-19 dated 26th July, 1991 and SSC-I/5010-14 dated 26th July, 1991 respectively. However, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the sanctioned syphon is only one in number and 3 inch in size each but since the petitioners wanted more water to irrigate their land, therefore, they installed 3 syphons for irrigating the land and therefore, the respondents may be directed to accord sanction of 3 syphons in number and 3 inch in size each. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent-State denying the claim of the petitioners. The respondents came with a case that so far as the petitioners Bagh Singh and Sumer Singh are concerned, sanction, as noticed above, have been issued installing 1 syphon of 3 inch 4 SBCWP No.4690/08 & 9 others size each on 26th July, 1991 and since then, they have been taking the water for irrigation from the syphons. So far as the installation of three syphons by the petitioners, the same has been denied and the respondents came with a case that whenever syphons in excess of sanction have been installed by the petitioners, the same have been removed by the respondents. While remitting the matter back to the Superintending Engineer in the writ petition filed by petitioners- Bagh Singh and others vide order dated 3rd March, 2008, it was directed to the respondents to hear the petitioners therein allowing them to produce the document in support of their claim and thereafter, decide the matter afresh on the point formulated therein. In pursuance thereof, the respondents vide order dated 1st May, 2008 Annexure-10 afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as also opportunity to produce document in support of their case. After having availed three opportunities to produce the documents, the petitioners failed to produce any document and relied on the oral statements which they made earlier. On 26th April, 2008, the respondent- Superintending Engineer heard arguments of the parties, however, on 29th April, 2008, the Assistant Engineer representing the respondent-State was also heard since the 5 SBCWP No.4690/08 & 9 others department was party to the writ petition before this Court. The petitioners have made reference to the order dated 5th April, 1993 whereby as many as 49 syphons have been sanctioned. So far as the present petitioners Bagh Singh and Sumer Singh are concerned, they have produced the document dated 26th July, 1991 whereby 1 syphon of 3 inch in size each was sanctioned in their favour at 825(L) in the year 1991. Though the sanction of syphon by order dated 26th July, 1991 was temporary in nature, however, the respondents came with a case that temporary sanction of the syphon in favour of the petitioners by order dated 26th July, 1991 is being not disturbed. The respondents denied the claim of petitioners claiming more number of syphons and the size thereof on the ground that there being no availability of the excess water for providing additional syphons. The respondents produced certain documents showing that the petitioners are using additional irrigation facility by illegally and unauthorisedly installing the syphons more in number and big in size and causing damage to the main canal as also adversely affecting the rights and interests of the cultivators in whose favour the irrigation facility has been lawfully extended under the provisions of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act and 6 SBCWP No.4690/08 & 9 others Rules, 1954 and 1955 respectively. The agriculturalists were lawfully extended sanction for the water supply to irrigate their field under the provisions of Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules but large number of persons like the petitioners are using the irrigation facility by illegally and unauthorisedly installing the syphons and causing damage to the main canal and therefore, the order impugned Annexure-10 came to be passed by the respondents. Even before the Superintending Engineer, the petitioners placed on record the sanction issued in their favour authorising them 1 syphon of 3 inch in size each dated 26th July, 1991. Except that document, the petitioners have failed to place on record any document before the Superintending Engineer. The Superintending Engineer held that at the time of granting sanction for installation of syphon it is made clear that it is temporary in nature and such sanction can be withdrawn without any notice. The sanction order itself speaks that sanction of syphons was a temporary arrangement and did not confer any right on the petitioners-agriculturalists to continue such syphons. However, the respondent-State did not intend to cancel the syphons which have been sanctioned at the relevant stage and continued to use irrigation facility through syphons originally sanctioned in favour of each of the 7 SBCWP No.4690/08 & 9 others petitioner and that was maintained by the order impugned Annexure-10 by the Superintending Engineer taking into account the fact that by an interim order of this Court, the petitioners have been continuously taking the water by installing syphons as sanctioned in their favour and on these premises, the respondent-Superintending Engineer held that the petitioners are entitled to only 1 syphon of 3 inch in size each for irrigating their fields but the writ petitioners claim to allow them to install 3 syphons of 3 inch size each. Looking to the factual matrix of the case and reply filed by the respondent-State on the basis of ground reality and availability of the water as also the fact that allowing the water supply through syphons is not under the provisions of Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act and Rules but it was only when extra water available at the relevant time which was made available to the agriculturalists but now since, there is scarcity of the water and therefore, no additional syphon can be sanctioned in their favour. However, whatever syphons have been sanctioned in their favour are not being disturbed by the respondents, as stated by the representative of the State, in the reply filed before the Superintending Engineer and as has been held by order Anneuxre-10. In my view, the petitioners 8 SBCWP No.4690/08 & 9 others are not entitled for the sanction of additional syphons. Whatever syphons have been sanctioned in their favour are maintained by the State and the respondents are continuously supplying the water through the number of syphons and size sanctioned. In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned. The writ petitions are dismissed. Stay petitions also stands dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. NK