20 February 2024 Environment Protection >> Environmental Law  

A legal battle has erupted over water rights in Sahuwala, Rajasthan, with the president of the Water User Association (WUA) being removed from his post. The ousted president, who remains unnamed in court documents, is challenging this decision in a writ petition filed before the High Court.

The crux of the issue lies in a long-standing dispute between two brothers regarding water turn allocation. The court, aiming for a resolution, directed the WUA president to explore possibilities of aligning water distribution with revenue records.

The WUA president, according to his petition, adhered to the court order by posting water turn slips on the association's notice board. However, these slips were reportedly rejected by the parties involved in the water turn dispute.

The situation escalated when the Superintending Engineer, citing non-compliance with the court order, invoked Section 45 of the Rajasthan Farmers Participation in Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000. This section empowers the competent authority to remove a WUA president for abusing power, neglecting duties, or acting in contravention of the Act. Consequently, the Superintending Engineer removed the WUA president from his position.

The dismissed president contests this decision on three grounds:

1. Lack of Authority: He argues that the Superintending Engineer does not hold the legal power to remove him.

2. Compliance with Order: He maintains that posting the water turn slips fulfilled the court's directive.

3. Denial of Hearing: He claims he was not given a chance to defend himself before the removal order.

The court, after reviewing the case, disagreed with the president's arguments. Here's a breakdown of the court's reasoning:

• Competent Authority: The court upheld the Superintending Engineer's authority based on relevant sections of the Act and the associated rules, which designate the Superintending Engineer as the competent authority for major irrigation projects like the one in Sahuwala.
• Non-Compliance: The court found the president's actions insufficient. While posting the water turn slips might be a step, simply displaying them doesn't constitute implementing the court's order to establish a new water turn based on revenue records.
• Opportunity to be Heard: The court concluded that the president was indeed given an opportunity to present his case before the removal order.

With these points considered, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Superintending Engineer's decision to remove the WUA president. This case highlights the importance of adhering to the spirit of court orders and fulfilling all required actions, not just taking preliminary steps. It also emphasizes the designated authority's role in ensuring proper water management within the irrigation system.