H.R. Panwar, J. - (1.) By the instant writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing and setting aside the order Annx.P/6 dt. 22.12.2007 passed by the respondent No.2 the Superintending Engineer, Sahava Lift Circle, IGNP, Bikaner.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioners claim to be in cultivatory possession of the agricultural land situated in Chak 9-LD in Muraba Nos. 36,37,43 and 44, though the said land stand in the name of their father and their father, being an old and infirm person; is unable to cultivate and, therefore, the petitioners, being the sons, are in the cultivatory possession of the said land. It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the respondent No.2, by its order Annex.P/2 dt. 22.06.2005 directed the respondent No.3, the Executive Engineer, Sahava Lift Circle, IGNP, Rawatsar, district Hanumangarh, to shift the out-let of the petitioners from 19/700-RD to 20-400-RD, though there was no such prayer made by any one. The order Annx.P/2 alleged to have been passed by the respondent No.2 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other affected agriculturists and also the respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to pass such an order.
(3.) The order Annx.P/2 came to be challenged by some agriculturist who were adversely affected by that order before the Irrigation Minister of the Government of Rajasthan and by the order Annx.P/3, the Irrigation Minister directed to maintain the status quo as it existed on the date of passing the order. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.2, particularly the order Annx.P/2, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court being SBCWP No.2125/2007, Bhanwar Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., and that writ petition came to be allowed by the order dt. 06.11.2007. In the said writ petition, this Court noticed that there is short controversy and while setting aside the order Annx.P/2, directed the respondent No.2, the Superintending Engineer, to hear the petitioners afresh and pass a fresh order on merit. The contention was raised before this Court by the petitioners that the respondent No.2, the Superintending Engineer, has no jurisdiction to pass the order in the nature of the order Annx.P/2 and this Court made it clear that it would be open for the petitioners to raise this contention also before the Superintending Engineer, which will be examined by the Superintending Engineer on merit and if the Superintending Engineer finds force in the contention then he would send the matter to the concerned competent authority who is competent to decide the controversy.;