Raju Khan vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9926 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7622/2021

1. Raju Khan S/o Gulsher Khan, Aged About 27 Years, Village Bahla Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj).

2. Gulsher Khan S/o Sayabne Khan, Aged About 65 Years, Village Bahla Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj).

3. Sarif Khan S/o Gulsher Khan, Aged About 33 Years, Village Bahla Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj).

4. Mishri Khan S/o Gulsher Khan, Aged About 32 Years, Village Bahla Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj).

5. Soman Khan S/o Gulsher Khan, Aged About 21 Years, Village Bahla Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj).

6. Usman Kahn S/o Gulsher Khan, Aged About 19 Years, Village Bahla Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Water Resources Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner.

3. Divisional Irrigation Officer, Tmc Division, Indira Gandhi Nehar Pariyojana, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj).

4. Assistant Commissioner Colonization Cum Alloting Authority, Mohangarh-1, Jaisalmer.

5. Executive Engineer, Mohangarh Tmc Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj).

6. Executive Engineer, 23Rd Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manas Khatri (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Tak (through VC)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Order

(2 of 3) [CW-7622/2021]

01/07/2021

1 Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that

number of petitions involving identical grievance have been

allowed by this Court, vide judgment dated 25.1.2016,passed in a

bunch of writ petitions led by SBCWP No.13842/2015 (Gulsher

Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan &Ors.); which has been duly followed

by another coordinate Bench in decision dated 24.10.2017 passed

in SBCWP No.11508/2017 (Gemar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors.).

2 Mr. Manish Tak, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents in principal agreed that the issue is broadly covered,

however, apprehended that in guise of the judgment of this Court,

the petitioners are seeking irrigation facilities to their land, even

when they are not in the command area.

3 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 petitioners shall be given irrigation

facilities only if, their land(s) fall in the command area.

(I) The petitioners shall approach respective Executive Engineer

of IGNP Department by 13.08.2021 and furnish documentary

evidence regarding their ownership and title of the agriculture

lands, which is in their possession.

(ii) Those 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

(3 of 3) [CW-7622/2021]

furnish copies of said stay order passed by the departmental

authorities or competent courts by 13.08.2021.

(iii) 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 their

favour by the departmental authorities or competent courts shall

consider the cases of the petitioners for inclusion of their names in

barabandi for ensuing years strictly in accordance with law.

(iv) 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.

(v) In case land(s) for which the petitioners are claiming

irrigation facilities, do not fall in culturable command area, the

respondents shall not be bound to provide irrigation facility

/barabandi.

4 The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

59-Taruna/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)