Deene Khan vs State Of Rajasthan

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 15494 Raj
Judgement Date : 5 October, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deene Khan vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 October, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13574/2021

1. Deene Khan S/o Lalu Khan, Aged About 66 Years, By Caste Musalman, R/o Village Panche Ka Talla, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

2. Hasamdeen S/o Deene Khan, Aged About 41 Years, By Caste Musalman, R/o Village Panche Ka Talla, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

3. Karim Khan S/o Deene Khan, Aged About 39 Years, By Caste Musalman, R/o Village Panche Ka Talla, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, (Water Resources Department), Jaipur, Raj.

2. The Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner, (Raj).

3. The Dy. Commissioner Colonization, Indra Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Nachana, District Jaisalmer (Raj).

4. The Tehsildar Colonization, Tehsil Nachana-2, District Jaisalmer, Raj.

5. The Executive Engineer (Irrigation), 28Th Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Phalodi, District Jodhpur, (Raj).

6. The Assistant Engineer (Irrigation), 28Th Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Phalodi, District Jodhpur, (Raj).

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Binja Ram
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Rajdeep Singh Chouhan for
                               Mr. Manish Tak



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                         Judgment / Order

05/10/2021

Mr. Binja Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners owns/possesses land, yet the respondents are (Downloaded on 05/10/2021 at 08:46:36 PM) (2 of 3) [CW-13574/2021] not providing irrigation facilities to the petitioners in view of the litigation though they are having interim order in their favour.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that number of petitions involving identical grievance have been allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 25.01.2016 passed in a bunch of writ petitions led by SBCWP No13842/2015 (Gulsher Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.); which has been duly followed by another Coordinate Bench decision dated 24.10.2017 passed in SBCWP No11508/2017 (Gemar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in principal agreed that the issue is broadly covered, he, however, apprehended that in guise of the judgment of this Court, the petitioner is seeking irrigation facilities to his land, even he is not in command area.

Having heard rival submissions, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the following directions given by this Court in the cases of Gulsher Khan and Gemar Singh (supra), with further directions that the petitioner shall be given irrigation facilities only if, their land(s) fall in the command area.

1. The petitioners shall approach respective Executive Engineer of IGNP Department by 31.10.2021 and furnish documentary evidence regarding their ownership and title of the agriculture lands, which they in their possession.

2. The petitioners, who are not having any documentary evidence regarding their ownership and title of the said agriculture land but their dispute regarding title of the said agriculture land is pending either before departmental authorities or before competent courts and stay order is passed in their favour, can also furnish copies of said stay order passed (Downloaded on 05/10/2021 at 08:46:36 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-13574/2021] by the departmental authorities or competent courts in their favour by 31.10.2021.

3. The respective Executive Engineer of IGNP Department after verifying the documentary evidence, furnished by the petitioner, or after taking into consideration the stay order passed in his favour by the departmental authorities or competent courts shall consider the case of the petitioner for inclusion of his name in barabandi for ensuing years strictly in accordance with law.

4. It is made clear that the petitioners, who are presently getting the irrigation facilities to their agriculture fields, will continue to get the same till next barabandi is fixed by the IGNP Department.

5. In case land(s) for which the petitioners are claiming irrigation facilities, do not fall in cultivable command area, the respondents shall not be bound to provide irrigation facility/barabandi.

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 44-Arun/-

(Downloaded on 05/10/2021 at 08:46:36 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)