- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY the concurrent decrees of the two courts below in a suit for mandatory injunction, the courts below have directed the Irrigation Department to continue the water supply to the agricultural fields Nos. 45, 46 and 47 of the plaintiffs, which was earlier in Chak No. 38 LNP, but later on, upon application of the plaintiff himself, was attached with the adjacent Chak No.39 LNP. The water course in question had water outlets on both the sides of LNP Nos.38 and 39 LNP. The trial court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Padampur, district Sriganganagar decreed the Suit No.46/2007 � Sultanram and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others on 07.04.2011 and Appeal No.01/2011 � State of Rajasthan and others vs. Sultanram and others was dismissed by appellate court of Additional District Judge, Srikaranpur, district Sriganganagar on 07.04.2011 upholding the decree of the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant � Irrigation Department, Mr. L.K. Purohit was directed to produce a Map Ex.4 of both the Chaks 38 and 39 LNP and accordingly, the same is produced before this Court and the same was perused. He submitted that since the agricultural fields of the plaintiffs' were not declared as Command Land, the irrigation facilities cannot be made available to the plaintiffs Sultanram and others and the court below has committed error in granting the mandatory injunction in favour of the appellant � plaintiff to supply irrigation water to them in Chak No.39 LNP. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents � plaintiffs urged that the water supply was being continued to the plaintiffs since 1994 and merely because his agricultural fields were attached with the Chak No. 39 LNP and even though in 39 LNP, the agricultural field No.64 as shown in the said map belonged to the same plaintiffs only, the adjacent agricultural field Nos. for 45, 46 and 47 are not being allowed to be irrigated through the water course and consequently they had to file the present suit for mandatory injunction, which had been rightly decreed by both the courts below and against which the present second appeal has been filed by the appellant � State, however, the same does not involve any substantial question of law. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the evidence on record, particularly the map Ex.4 produced by the learned counsel for the appellant � State, Mr. L.K. Purohit, this Court is satisfied that the courts below have rightly and justly decreed the mandatory injunction suit in favour of the plaintiffs directing the defendant Irrigation Department to continue the water supply from the water course having water outlet for Chak No.39 LNP. The disputed agricultural fields Nos. 45, 46 and 47 could not be denied irrigation facilities as other adjacent fields in both Chak Nos. 38 and 39 LNP are being allowed such irrigation facility. There is no substantial question of law arising in the present second appeal of the State and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present second appeal of the appellant � State is dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the courts below and to all the concerned parties. ;