Badri Prasad and Others vs The State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Balia, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.

We are in agreement with the conclusion of the learned single Judge that no case for substantial injury calling for interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction has been made out.

From the map of the disputed land in question showing the existing outlet the proposed new outlet and the water course already been constructed, it is apparent that earlier to order under challenge a very large area of two chaks No. 19 or 20 SDS was being served with irrigation water through outlets at stone No. 20 & 24 from the said area a new chak was carved out as chak No. 19 SDS (B) situated in the command of the down stream to be served by providing a new outlet at stone No. 18 without making any change in the existing outlet which were to serve the remaining area of the existing chak No. 19 SDS, marked as 19 SDS (A), and 20 SDS.

Learned counsel for the appellant urged that because of the opening of new outlet down stream water, supply and force of water up stream shall be reduced and it would affect the total water supply to the land remaining in the existing chaks as well as it would result in change in established system of irrigation. From the map placed on record this contention is not justified. The effected Khasara No. 37 & 53 pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, to substantiate his claim, shall continue to be served with outlet at stone No. 24 through the existing water course and Nakas as has been shown in the map remain unaltered. The water course neither passes through any land which forms part of the new chak, nor by dint of establishing a new outlet down stream, its force at the upstream is reduced. We fail to understand, if the petitioners continue to get water from the same outlet from upstream, through the same water course and Nakas, existing in the remainder of the chak now establishing a new outlet down stream for the better irrigation of the area situated down stream can affect irrigation of exiting chak.

In this view of the matter the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed summarily.