AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The matter comes upon for consideration of the application (APPLW No.995/2018) preferred on behalf of the petitioner with a prayer to
decide the writ petition in terms of the decision dated 13.04.2012 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3967/2008 (Krishan Kumar Vs. State of
Rajasthan).
With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally today.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted 22 bighas of command land in Chak 1 KWM II-B (Now 1KNM - IIB) Tehsil
Gharsana, Murbba No.209/30 Kill No.1 to 5, 7 to 15 and 17 to 24 along with 3 bighas of uncommand land vide allotment dated 25.02.1982.
The petitioner has deposited the entire price along with interest in lieu of the land allotted to him. Later on, Khatedari was also issued in favour
of the petitioner.
The grievance of the petitioner is this that out of 22 bighas of command land, allotted to him way back in the year 1982, the respondents have
provided irrigation facility only for 10 bighas of land and 12 bighas of land was left without irrigation facility. As per the petitioner several
representations have been filed by him to the authorities concerned but the grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the controversy involved in this petition has already been decided by this Court in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.3697/2008 (Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan) decided on 13.04.2012, wherein this Court has held that any land
allotted as command land could not have been treated to be uncommand land by the Irrigation Authorities.
It is also submitted by learned counsel fro the petitioner that the decision rendered in Krishan Kumar''s case (supra) has been upheld by the
Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.112/2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore, prayed that the present writ petition may be allowed in terms of the judgment passed by this
Court in Krishan Kumar''s case (supra).
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that due to scarcity of water the 12
bighas of the command land allotted to the petitioner has not been included in Chak Plan and the said land is treated uncommand land, therefore,
irrigation facility cannot be provided by the respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This Court in Krishan Kumar''s case (supra) has held as under:
Indisputably, the allotment of the land in question in favour of the petitioner''s predecessor was made as command land by the competent
authority after charging the price as required to be paid for irrigation land. It is also a common ground between the parties that the since the land
allotted was command land, the irrigation facility was extended to it up to the year 1983. In this view of the matter, the irrigation authorities had no
jurisdiction to consider the command land to be uncommond land on their own. As a matter of fa ct, while deciding the representation made by the
petitioner, the respondent authority has proceeded with the presumption that the land in question is uncommond land and the same cannot be
converted into command land inasmuch as the adequate water is not available in Anoopgarh Branch of the canal. In considered opinion of this
Court, the petitioner''s land which was command land when initially allotted could not have been treated to be uncommand land by the irrigation
authorities. Thus, the respondent authority has committed an error in treating the land to be uncommand land.
The land held by the petitioner being command land the respondent authorities are under obligation to take appropriate steps to provide the
irrigation facilities to the said land. The respondent authority has to consider the petitioner''s demand for supply of the water in accordance with the
provisions of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 and the Rules made thereunder.
In the present case also, 22 bighas of command land was allotted to the petitioner way back in the year 1982, as per Annexure-1, however, as
per the petitioner and the respondents, the irrigation facility is provided to the petitioner only up to the 10 bighas of command land.
The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents - Department is not acceptable that since 12 bighas of land of the petitioner was
recorded as uncommand land in the Chak Plan and irrigation facility could not be provided to the said land.
As per the law laid down by this Court in Krishan Kumar''s case (supra) the Irrigation Department has no jurisdiction to treat the command
land as uncommand land and the respondents are under obligation to provide irrigation facility to the said 12 bighas of command land, which has
been left out.
Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Anupgarh Branch
Division-II, Gharsana, District Sir Ganganagar is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner for supplying
water to the 12 bighas of command land of the petitioner allotted to him vide Annexure-1 while treating it to be command land, in accordance with
the provisions of Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 and Rules made thereunder expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks
from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Stay petition stands disposed of.
All the applications are disposed of.