Kadar Khan vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 10666 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10148/2022

1. Kadar Khan S/o Hindal Khan, Aged About 75 Years,

2. Jaam Khan S/o Kadar Khan, Aged About 38 Years, Both the petitioners are B/c Musalman, R/o Satyaya, Tehsil Pokran, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Raj.

3. The Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner, Raj.

4. Add. Commissioner Colonization Cum Revenue Appellate Officer, Jaisalmer.

5. The Dy. Commissioner Colonization, Indra Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Nachana, District Jaisalmer, Raj.

6. The Tehsildar Colonization, Tehsil Nachana-2. District Jaisalmer, Raj.

7. The Executive Engineer (Irrigation), T.M.C.. Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Mohangarh, District Jodhpur, Raj.

8. The Assistant Engineer (Irrigation), T.M.C. Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Mohangarh, District Jodhpur, Raj.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Binja Ram
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Manish Tak

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

18/08/2022

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

petitioners owns/possesses land, yet the respondents are not

(2 of 3) [CW-10148/2022]

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 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 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 petitioners 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 15.09.2022 and furnish

documentary evidence regarding their ownership and title

of the agriculture lands, which they in their possession.

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

(3 of 3) [CW-10148/2022]

copies of said stay order passed by the departmental

authorities or competent courts in their favour by

15.09.2022.

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.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 38-KashishS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)