Faij Mohamad vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 15592 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14205/2021

1. Faij Mohamad S/o Satey Khan, Aged About 64 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bharamsar, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

2. Latib Khan S/o Satey Khan, Aged About 50 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bharamsar, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

3. Meer Mohamad S/o Faij Mohamad, Aged About 37 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bharamsar, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

4. Jawar Ali S/o Faij Mohamad, Aged About 34 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bharamsar, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

5. Ismail Khan S/o Latib Khan, Aged About 26 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bharamsar, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

6. Anar Ali S/o Latib Khan, Aged About 24 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bharamsar, Tehsil Pokran, 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.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Parwat Singh Rathore





                                           (2 of 3)                  [CW-14205/2021]


             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                           Judgment / Order

06/10/2021

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioners owns/possesses 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 25.01.2016 passed in a bunch of writ

petitions led by SBCWP No13842/2015 (Gulsher Khan Vs. State

of Rajasthan & Ors.); which has been duly followed by another

Coordinate Bench decision dated 24.10.2017 passed in SBCWP

No11508/2017 (Gemar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

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 petitioner is seeking

irrigation facilities to his land, even he is 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 petitioner shall be given irrigation facilities only if,

their land(s) fall in the command area.

1. The petitioners shall approach respective Executive

Engineer of IGNP Department by 31.10.2021 and furnish

documentary evidence regarding their ownership and title of

the agriculture lands, which they in their possession.

(3 of 3) [CW-14205/2021]

2. The petitioners, who 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 said stay order passed

by the departmental authorities or competent courts in their

favour by 31.10.2021.

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 his 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.

4. 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.

5. In case land(s) 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.

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

288-mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)