Smt. Jammi Khatu vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 17403 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16228/2021

1. Smt. Jammi Khatu D/o Shri Halim Khan, Aged About 46 Years, Caste - Musalman R/o Bharewala, Tehsil- Pokran District- Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

2. Dive Khan S/o Shri Rahman Khan, Aged About 48 Years, Caste - Musalman R/o Bharewala, Tehsil- Pokran District- Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

3. Abdul Kadir S/o Shri Dive Khan, Aged About 28 Years, Caste - Musalman R/o Bharewala, Tehsil- Pokran District- Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

4. Mubarki W/o Shri Abdul Kadir, Aged About 26 Years, Caste - Musalman R/o Bharewala, Tehsil- Pokran District- Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

5. Allhabaraya S/o Shri Dive Khan, Aged About 23 Years, Caste - Musalman R/o Bharewala, Tehsil- Pokran District- Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

6. Hajrat Ali S/o Shri Dive Khan, Aged About 19 Years, Caste

- Musalman R/o Bharewala, Tehsil- Pokran District- Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Commissioner, Colonization I.g.n.p., Nachana, Distt. -

Jaisalmer.

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

4. The Colonization, Tehsildar, Nachana No. 2, Distt.-

Jaisalmer.

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

6. The Executive Engineer, 24Th Division Bhikampur, Indra Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna Bhikampur, Jaisalmer.

                                                                ----Respondents





                                           (2 of 4)                 [CW-16228/2021]




For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. S.S. Nirban
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. B.L. Kudan for
                                 Mr. Manish Tak



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                      Order

22/11/2021

1. Mr. S.S. Nirban, learned counsel for the petitioners has

submitted that the petitioners own/possess land, yet the

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 S ingh Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors.).

3. Mr. Kudan, 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 petitioners are seeking irrigation

facilities to their lands, 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

(3 of 4) [CW-16228/2021]

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 15.12.2021 and furnish

documentary evidence regarding their ownership and title

of the agricultural land, which is in their possession.

ii. The petitioners, who are not having any

documentary evidence regarding their ownership and title

of the said agricultural lands but their dispute regarding

title of the said agricultural lands 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.

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

agricultural fields, will continue to get the same till next

barabandi is fixed by the IGNP Department.

                                                                             (4 of 4)                [CW-16228/2021]



                                        v.     In case landa 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

83-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)