Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jannat vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 November, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16030/2021
Jannat W/o Nibab Khan, Aged About 63 Years, By Caste
Musalman, R/o Village Hariyar, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer
----Petitioner
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,
Dist. Jaisalmer.
4. The Colonization Tehsildar, Nachana No.2, Dist. Jaisalmer.
5. The Executive Engineer, Indra Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana,
Tmc Division Mohangarh, Jaisalmer.
6. The Assistant Engineer, Indra Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana,
Tmc Division Mohangarh, Jaisalmer.
7. The Board Of Revenue, Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Nirban
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Tak
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
18/11/2021
1. Mr. S.S. Nirban, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner owns/possesses land, yet the
respondents are not providing irrigation facilities to the petitioner
in view of the litigation, though, the petitioner has interim order in
her favour.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that a
number of petitions involving identical grievance have been
allowed by this Court, vide judgment dated 25.01.2016, passed in
(2 of 3) [CW-16030/2021]
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
by the said judgment. He, however, apprehended that in guise of
the judgment of this Court, the petitioner is seeking irrigation
facilities to her land, even though she is 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 petitioner shall be given irrigation
facilities only if her land falls in the command area.
i. The petitioner shall approach respective Executive
Engineer of IGNP Department by 15.12.2021 and furnish
documentary evidence regarding her ownership and title of
the agricultural land, which is in her possession.
ii. The petitioner, who is not having any documentary
evidence regarding her ownership and title of the said
agricultural land but her dispute regarding 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 15.12.2021.
(3 of 3) [CW-16030/2021]
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 her favour by the
departmental authorities or competent courts shall
consider the case of the petitioner for inclusion of her
name in barabandi for ensuing years strictly in accordance
with law.
iv. It is made clear that the petitioner, who is presently
getting the irrigation facilities to her agricultural fields, will
continue to get the same till next barabandi is fixed by the
IGNP Department.
v. In case land for which the petitioner is 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
82-Amar/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
