Lala vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 12657 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16025/2022

Lala W/o Chandesar Khan, Aged About 59 Years, By Caste Musalman R/o Village Hariyar, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer.

----Petitioner 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, Distt. Jaisalmer.

4. The Colonization Tehsildar, Nachana No. 2, Distt.

Jaisalmer.

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

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

7. The Board Of Revenue, Ajmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharwan Singh Nirban Ms. Anita Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Tak, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

21/10/2022

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner owns/possesses land, yet the respondents are not

providing irrigation facilities to the petitioner in view of the

litigation though they are having interim order in their favour.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that

number of petitions involving identical grievance have been

(2 of 3) [CW-16025/2022]

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 within a period of two weeks from today 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 copies of said stay order passed by the departmental authorities or competent courts in their favour within a period of two weeks from today.

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.

(3 of 3) [CW-16025/2022]

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 325-KashishS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)