- (1.) THIS petition for writ is directed to challenge the orders dated 8.2.2008, 17.4.2008 and 27.3.2012 passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer (Executive Engineer), Water Resources Division -II, Hanumangarh; the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Hanumangarh and the Collector, Sriganganagar respectively. By the order 8.2.2008 the Divisional Irrigation Officer (Executive Engineer) accepted an application preferred by respondents Sarva Shri Mamraj, Dhanraj, Krishna Lal, Vinod Kumar and Buddhram for transfer of their 'Rakba' to Chak 9 DBM from Chak 24 LGW. The Divisional Irrigation Officer also ordered for providing water course to the respondents named above from the main water course available with 9 DBM. The orders passed by the Superintending Engineer and the Collector are the orders affirming the order passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer (Executive Engineer).
(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed are that respondents Sarva Shri Mamraj and Dhanraj preferred applications in the month of January, 2006 to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division -II, Hanumangarh Junction for transfer of their land to Chak 9 DBM from Chak 24 LGW. The transfer was sought on the count that they were not receiving adequate water from the water course available with Chak 24 LGW. The Executive Engineer in the capacity of the Divisional Irrigation Officer issued general notices inviting objections for the transfer sought to be made by the private respondents. Several agriculturists of Chak 9 DBM objected for demanded transfer, but the Divisional Irrigation Officer made an order dated 8.2.2008 for transfer as desired by the private respondents and also allowed irrigation facility. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer, the petitioner and several other agriculturists preferred appeal before the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Hanumangarh and that also came to be rejected on 17.4.2008. The private respondents then moved an application before the Collector to execute the decision taken by the Divisional Irrigation Officer. The petitioner also submitted objections with specific assertion that more than 68% of the agriculturists of Chak 9 DBM are not agreeable for the transfer. Several other objections too were taken by the petitioner including the procedural illegality accepting in awarding transfer of the land to Chak 9 DBM. A prayer was also made to treat the memo of objections as a petition under Section 24 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1954'). The Collector by the order dated 27.3.2012 affirmed the order dated 8.2.2008 passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer on the count that the order was passed after hearing the petitioner and the petitioner did not challenge the findings given by the Divisional Irrigation Officer either by way of filing appeal or by way of filing a petition for writ before the High Court. The Collector treated the order passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer (Executive Engineer) dated 8.2.2008 a final, thus, directed to provide water course to the private respondents in Chak 9 DBM and to close the water course from Chak 24 LGW. While challenging the order passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer, the Superintending Engineer and the Collector, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the procedure given for transfer of existing water course, the decision would have been taken by the Collector by conducting an inquiry and not by the Divisional Irrigation Officer. As per learned counsel for the petitioner the procedure adopted in the instant matter is contrary to the procedure prescribed under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act of 1954. The other argument advanced is that even by assuming that the procedure adopted was in consonance with the provisions of the Act of 1954, then too the Collector while exercising authority under Section 24 of the Act should have given adequate reasons for not accepting the objections raised by the petitioner.
(3.) PER contra, as per counsel for the respondents, the private respondents submitted application to the Divisional Irrigation Officer for transfer of existing water course in accordance with sub -section (1) of Section 23 of the Act of 1954 and the Divisional Irrigation Officer after holding necessary inquiry found the transfer necessary for the better management of the irrigation, thus, passed the order dated 8.2.2008. It is asserted that the Collector has given adequate reasons for accepting the findings arrived by the Divisional Irrigation Officer. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions.;