Mehar Deen vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 9667 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9989/2022

1. Mehar Deen S/o Shri Kher Deen, Aged About 82 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Rehrund, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).

2. Jamal Khan S/o Shri Kher Deen, Aged About 77 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Rehrund, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).

3. Abdal Khan S/o Shri Jamal Khan, Aged About 52 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Rehrund, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).

4. Deene Khan S/o Shri Mehar Deen, Aged About 50 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Rehrund, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).

5. Urshe Khan S/o Shri Jamal Khan, Aged About 47 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Rehrund, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner.

3. The Assistant Commissioner Colonization, Mohangarh No. 1, Distt. Jaisalmer.

4. The Colonization Tehsildar, Mohangarh No. 1, Distt.

Jaisalmer

5. The Executive Engineer, Indra Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna, 23Th Division Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer.

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

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Sharwan Singh Nirban
For Respoindent(s)        :     Mr. Manish Tak

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

(2 of 3) [CW-9989/2022]

25/07/2022

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 15.08.2022 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

(3 of 3) [CW-9989/2022]

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 15.08.2022.

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 191-SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)