Raju Khan vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 12377 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14631/2022

1. Raju Khan S/o Gulsher Khan, Aged About 28 Years,

2. Gulsher Khan S/o Sayabne Khan, Aged About 66 Years,

3. Sarif Khan S/o Gulsher Khan, Aged About 34 Years,

4. Mishri Khan S/o Gulsher Singh, Aged About 33 Years,

5. Soman Khan S/o Gulsher Khan, Aged About 22 Years,

6. Usman Khan S/o Gulsher Khan, Aged About 20 Years, All R/o Village Bahla Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner.

3. Divisional Irrigation Officer Tmc Division, Indra Gandhi Nehar Pariyojna, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

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

5. Executive Engineer, Mohangarh, Tmc Division, Indra Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

6. Executive Engineer, 23Rd Division, Indra Gandhi Nagar Pariyojna, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manas Ranchhor Khatri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh Chouhan for Mr. Manish Tak

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

17/10/2022

1. Mr. Manas Ranchhor Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the petitioners own/possess land, yet the

(2 of 3) [CW-14631/2022]

respondents are not providing irrigation facilities to the petitioner

in view of the litigation, though they are having interim order in

their favour.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 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 principal agreed that the issue is broadly covered, however,

apprehended that in guise of the judgment of this Court, the

petitioners are seeking irrigation facilities to their land, even when

they are 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 petitioners shall be given irrigation

facilities only if, their land(s) fall in the command area.

(i) The petitioners shall approach respective Executive Engineer of IGNP Department by 30.10.2022 and furnish documentary evidence regarding their ownership and title of the agriculture lands, which is in their possession.

(ii) Those 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 by 30.10.2022.

(iii) The respective Executive Engineer of IGNP Department after verifying the documentary evidence, furnished by the petitioner, or after taking into

(3 of 3) [CW-14631/2022]

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 agriculture fields, will continue to get the same till next barabandi is fixed by the IGNP Department.

(v) In case land(s) for which the petitioners are claiming irrigation facilities, do 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.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 171-SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)