Skip to content


Rawta Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1914/1981
Judge
Reported in1981WLN(UC)324
AppellantRawta Ram
RespondentState of Rajasthan and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....land of, chak 2 ngd to chak 1 ngd and 3 ngd.;(b) rajasthan irrigation & drainage act, 1954 - appeal-- application in appeal cannot be equated to on appeal.;if the petitioner acquired knowledge of the order, he ought to have preferred an appeal with an application for condonation of delay, but admittedly this was not done and instead presented this writ petition. it is said that the petitioner submitted an application in appeal preferred by the other cultivators. that application can hardly be equated to an appeal.;(c) constitution of india - article 226 and rajasthan irrigation & drainage act, 1954--technicalities level of chak for better irrigation--held, no case of prejudice is made out.;it appears that the level of chak 2 ngd is comparatively low from the level of chak 1..........stated by the xen, the xen has stated the intensity from 22% to 58%, whereas the prescribed intensity should have been 52%. considering the low intensity of the percentage of the irrigation it has been considered essential that the, lands of chak 2 ngd may be transferred to the adjoining two chaks. this aspect has also been considered by the xen that by this scheme the loss of water in the. water course will also be minimized and the past experience in relation to amalgamation of another chak in chak 1 ngd and in chak 1 llw, was also noticed as by such an action there has been an increase in irrigation. the discharge of water from the out-lets will increase3. the learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the petitioner's lands are at a higher level, but that too has.....
Judgment:

M.C. Jain, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his land situated in Chak 2 NGD has been transferred to Chak 1 NGD without notice to him and the notice did not give the reasons thereof. As a result of such transfer the petitioner's right of irrigation has been seriously prejudiced. It maybe stated that the notices were issued to the cultivators of Chak 2 NGD. The petitioner has produced notice Ex. 2 and notice Ex. 3. The petitioner has no where averred in the petition that the petitioner had no knowledge of notice Ex.2. In the absence of such on averment it cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge of the proceedings of the transfer of the tend of Chak 2 NGD to Chak 1 NGD snd 3 NGD. In pursuance of the notice an order was ultimately passed by the XEN on 13-6-1980. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the order of the XEN Ex. 5. If the petitioner acquired knowledge of the order, he ought to have preferred an appeal with an application for condo nation of delay, but admittedly this was not done and instead presented this writ petition. It is said that the petitioner submitted an application in appeal preferred by the other cultivators. That application can hardly be equated to an appeal, so it cannot be said that the petitioner had preferred any appeal before the Superintending Engineer against the order of the XEN. Resides that I have perused the impugned order. It appears that a decision had been taken for abolition of Chak 2 NGD in the interest of better irrigation. The XEN considered the intensity of the irrigation for the last three year's of the lands mentioned in para 2, while dealing with the case of Chak 2 NGD. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the intensity of irrigation has been considered of the period after filing of the application for abolition, of the Chak and the intensity of irrigation prior o 1976 has not been taken into consideration, The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show as to what was the percentage of the irrigation of the lands situated in Chak 2 NGD prior to the year 1976. In the evidence of such material it cannot be taken that the intensity of irrigation was much more than what has been stated by the XEN, The XEN has stated the intensity from 22% to 58%, whereas the prescribed intensity should have been 52%. Considering the low intensity of the percentage of the irrigation it has been considered essential that the, lands of Chak 2 NGD may be transferred to the adjoining two Chaks. This aspect has also been considered by the XEN that by this scheme the loss of water in the. Water course will also be minimized and the past experience in relation to amalgamation of another Chak in Chak 1 NGD and in Chak 1 LLW, was also noticed as by such an action there has been an increase in irrigation. The discharge of water from the out-lets will increase

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the petitioner's lands are at a higher level, but that too has hot been substantiated On the 'contrary from the plan, which has been shown to me, it appears that the level of Chak 2 NGD is comparatively low from the level of Chak 1 NGD; Thus, the technical aspect has been considered and no ease of any prejudice is made out by the petitioner.

4. In this view of the matter, in, my opinion, this writ petition has no force, so it is hereby dismissed summarily.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //