- (1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India on 6-8-2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 7-7-20O3 (Annex. 6) passed by respondent No. 2 (Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Hanumangarh Junction) by which the Superintending Engineer FV/GV/R100/2004//GSD-VNP/USA/24416/2004 (respondent No. 2) dismissed the appeal (Annex. 3) filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 4 (Madan Lal) and upheld the order dated 3-1-2002 (Annex. 2) passed by the respondent No. 3 (executive Engineer, Irrigation Division-II, Hanumangarh) by which respondent No. 3 (Executive Engineer) allowed the application filed by respondent No. 4 (Madan Lal) and sanctioned another Naka (drain) from the khasra No. 512/434 belonging to the petitioner for supplying water to his agricultural field situated in Khasra No. 513/434 be quashed and set aside.
(2.) The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under : (i) That the petitioner and respondent No. 4 (Madan Lal) both are neighbourers having adjacent agricultural fields to each other and doing farming on their field. The land bearing khasra No. 512/434 belongs to the petitioner and the land bearing khasra No. 513/434 belongs to the respondent No. 4 (Madan Lal). (ii) Further case of the petitioner is that water to the field of respondent No. 4 (Madan Lal) is supplied from Pakka Drain (Naka) made in the outskirts of petitioner's khasra No. 512/434 from north to south and respondent No. 4 (Madan Lai) wanted a new drain (Naka) cutting across through the field of the petitioner from midway from west to east for irrigating his field, whereas he was already getting sufficient water to his field from old Naka (drain). (iii) Further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 filed an application before the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division II, Hanumangarh (respondent No. 3) praying for sanction and construction of new additional nake (drain) for supplying water to his agricultural field bearing khasra No. 513/434. (iv) Further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 3 (Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division-II, Hanumangarh) did not issue notices to the petitioner and called technical report from the concerned Assistant Engineer, Irrigation and without complying with the provisions of Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954) through impugned order dated 3-1-2002 (Annex. 2) allowed the application filed by respondent No. 4 (Madan Lai) and sanctioned new Naka (drain) from the field of the petitioner bearing Khasra No. 512/434. (v) Further case of the petitioner is that petitioner filed an appeal (Annex. 3) under Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1955) before the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, Hanumangarh Junction (respondent No.1 2) against the impugned order dated 3-1-2002 (Annex. 2). (vi) Further case of the petitioner is that before the appeal was decided, the respondent No. 4 {Madan Lai) entered into compromise dated 11-6-2003 (Annex. 5) and the said compromise (Annex. 5) was duly executed on stamp paper and attested by a notary advocate and in that compromise dated 11-6-2003 (Annex. 5), the respondent No. 4 (Madan Lai) withdraw his demand for additional Naka in Khasra No. 512/434. (vii) Further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 (Madan Lai) later on rejected the compromise (Annex. 5) and withdrew himself from the compromise (Annex. 5). (viii) Further case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 (Superintending Engineer) without taking notice of the compromise (Annex. 5) through order dated 7-7-2003 (Annex. 6) rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the order dated 3-1-2002 (Annex. 2) passed by the respondent No. 3 (Executive Engineer). (ix) After being aggrieved from the order dated 3-1-2002 (Annex. 2) passed by the respondent No. 3 (Executive Engineer) and order dated 7-7-2003 (Annex. 6) passed by respondent No. 2 (Superintending Engineer), this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
(3.) In this writ petition, the following two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner : (1) That the Executive Engineer (respondent No. 3) passed the impugned order dated 3-1-2002 (Annex. 2) without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and hence the order dated 3-1-2002 (Annex. 2) passed by respondent No. 3 (Executive Engineer) is violative of principles of natural justice. (ii) That since compromise (Annex. 5) dated 11-6-2003 was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 (Madan Lal), therefore, in view of that fact, the respondent No. 2 (Superintending Engineer) should have allowed the appeal (Annex. 3) and hence the judgment dated 7-7-2003 (Annex. 6) passed by respondent No. 2 (Superintending Engineer) is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.;