Kasam Khan vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 17592 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16328/2021

Kasam Khan S/o Deenu Khan, Aged About 41 Years, Village Bahala, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner.

3. Assistant Commissioner Colonization Cum Alloting Authority, Mohangarh-1, Jaisalmer.

4. Executive Engineer, Mohangarh Tmc Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj).

5. Executive Engineer, 23Rd Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj).

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Manas Ranchore Khatri
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Manish Tak



                       JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                       Order

24/11/2021

1. Mr. Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner owns/possesses land, yet the respondents are not

providing irrigation facilities to the petitioner in view of the

litigation, though, he is having interim order in his favour.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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

(2 of 3) [CW-16328/2021]

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 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 he is 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 petitioner shall be given irrigation

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

1. The petitioner shall approach respective Executive Engineer of IGNP Department by 15.12.2021 and furnish documentary evidence regarding his ownership and title of the agriculture land, which is in his possession.

2. In case the petitioner is not having any documentary evidence regarding his ownership and title of the said agriculture land but his dispute regarding title of the said agriculture land is pending either before departmental authorities or before competent Courts and stay order is passed in his favour, can also furnish copies of the said stay order passed by the departmental authorities or competent Courts in his favour by 15.12.2021.

3. 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 petitioner's favour by the departmental authorities or competent courts shall consider the case of the petitioner for inclusion of his name in barabandi for ensuing years strictly in accordance with law.

(3 of 3) [CW-16328/2021]

4. It is made clear that the petitioner, who is presently getting the irrigation facilities to his agriculture field, will continue to get the same till next barabandi is fixed by the IGNP Department.

5. In case land for which the petitioner is claiming irrigation facilities, does 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

51-A.Arora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)