Gul Mohammad vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 17309 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16040/2021

1. Gul Mohammad S/o Late Rahim Khan, Aged About 72 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bharewala, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

2. Lrs Of Faij Mohammad, S/o Lt. Rahim Khan, Through-

3. Ajija W/o Lt. Faij. Mohd., Aged About 67 Years, By Caste Musalman R/o Bharewala, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

4. Habib Kha S/o Lt. Faij Mohd., Aged About 44 Years, By Caste Musalman R/o Bharewala, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

5. Jinde Kha S/o Lt. Faij Mohd., Aged About 39 Years, By Caste Musalman R/o Bharewala, Tehsil Pokaran, 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, Dist. Jaisalmer.

4. The Colonization Tehsildar, Nachana No.2, Dist. Jaisalmer.

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

6. The Assistant Engineer (Irrigation), Sub Division Ii Tmc Division Indra Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana Mohangarh, Jaisalmer.

7. The Board Of Revenue, Ajmer.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore for
                                  Mr. Parwat Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. Manish Tak





                                            (2 of 3)                  [CW-16040/2021]


                       JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                       Order

20/11/2021

Mr. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that the petitioners own/possess land, yet the respondents are 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 25.1.2016, 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 decision dated 24.10.2017 passed in

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

Ors.).

Mr. Manish Tak, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents in principle 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 his land, even though they are 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 petitioners shall be given irrigation

facilities only if, their land falls in the command area.

1. 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 agriculture lands, which is in their possession.

(3 of 3) [CW-16040/2021]

2. In case the petitioners 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 the said

stay order passed by the departmental authorities or

competent Courts in their favour by 30.11.2021.

3. 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 petitioners' favour by the departmental authorities

or competent courts shall consider the case of the

petitioners 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 its agriculture fields, will

continue to get the same till next barabandi is fixed by the

IGNP Department.

5. In case land for which the petitioners are claiming irrigation

facilities, does not fall in culturable command area, the

respondents shall not be bound to provide irrigation facility/

barabandi.

The stay application also stand disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

41-A.Arora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)