Smt. Ajmat Khatoon vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 17097 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9225/2020

1. Smt. Ajmat Khatoon W/o Late Shri Pathan Khan, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Village Satyay, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer.

2. Rayam Khan S/o Late Shri Pathan Khan, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Satyay, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer.

3. Shakoor Khan S/o Late Shri Pathan Khan, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Satyay, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer.

4. Sayabdeen S/o Late Shri Pathan Khan, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Satyay, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer.

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Commissioner, Colonization, Bikaner.

3. The Dy. Commissioner, Colonization, Nachna, District Jaisalmer.

4. The Executive Engineer, Tmc Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyozana, Mohangarh, Jaisalmer.

5. The Assistant Colonization, Mohangarh, Tehsil Nachana, District Jaisalmer.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Mahesh Thanvi
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Manish Tak



                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Order

16/11/2021

1. Mr. Mahesh Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioners has

submitted that the petitioners own/possess land, yet the

(2 of 3) [CW-9225/2020]

respondents are not providing irrigation facilities to the petitioners

in view of the litigation though the petitioners have interim order

in their favour.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that a

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 No.13842/2015

(Gulsher Khan Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.); which has been

duly followed by another Coordinate Bench decision dated

24.10.2017 passed in SBCWP 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,

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

Court, the petitioners are seeking irrigation facilities to their land,

even though they are not in 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 lands fall in the command area.

i. The petitioners shall approach respective Executive

Engineer of IGNP Department by 30.11.2021 and furnish

documentary evidence regarding their ownership and title

of the agricultural lands, which is in their possession.

ii. The petitioners, who are not having any

documentary evidence regarding their ownership and title

of the said agricultural land but their dispute regarding

(3 of 3) [CW-9225/2020]

title of the said agricultural land is pending either before

departmental authorities or before competent courts and

stay order is passed in their favour, can also furnish copies

of the said stay order passed by the departmental

authorities or competent courts in their favour by

30.11.2021.

iii. The respective Executive Engineer of IGNP

Department after verifying the documentary evidence

furnished by the petitioners, 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 lands 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.

5. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 8-Amar/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)