Nawab Khan vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9602 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7495/2021

1. Nawab Khan S/o Shri Raydhan Khan, Aged About 70 Years, B/c Musalman, R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

2. Pathan Khan S/o Shri Nawab Khan, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Musalman, R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

3. Aman Allha S/o Shri Nawab Khan, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Musalman, R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

4. Kayma W/o Shri Nawab, Aged About 65 Years, B/c Musalman, R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

5. Surtani D/o Shri Nawab, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Musalman, R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

6. Hawa D/o Shri Nawab, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Musalman, R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

7. Amina D/o Shri Nawab, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Musalman, R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner.

3. The Dy. Commissioner, Colonization I.g.n.p., Nachana, Distt. Jaisalmer.

4. The Colonization Tehsildar, Mohangarh No. 1, Dist.

Jaisalmer.

5. The Executive Engineer, Mohangarh Tmc Division, Indra Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna Mohangarh, Jaisalmer.

6. The Executive Engineer, 23Th Division, Indra Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna Mohangarh, Jaisalmer.

                                                                ----Respondents



                                           (2 of 3)                   [CW-7495/2021]


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Sharwan Singh Nirban through
                                Cisco Webex App
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Manish Tak through Cisco Webex
                                App


                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
                             Order

28/05/2021

1.   Mr.   Shrawan       Singh      Nirban,       learned        counsel   for   the

petitioners submitted that the petitioners own/possess land, yet

the respondents are not providing irrigation facilities to the

petitioner in view of the litigation, though they are having interim

order in their favour.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners also 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.).

3. 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.

4. 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.

(3 of 3) [CW-7495/2021]

(i) The petitioners shall approach respective Executive Engineer of IGNP Department by 30.06.2021 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 furnish copies of said stay order passed by the departmental authorities or competent courts by 30.06.2021.

(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.

5. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

18-pooja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)