Birbal Khan vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 11764 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13310/2022

1. Birbal Khan S/o Shri Aamad Khan, Aged About 46 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District - Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).

2. Dilwar Khan S/o Shri Ismail Khan, Aged About 49 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District - Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).

3. Punal Khan S/o Shri Aamad Khan, Aged About 56 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District - Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).

4. Birbal Khan S/o Shri Manji Khan, Aged About 31 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District - Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).

5. Chnesar Khan S/o Shri Ismail Khan, Aged About 46 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bahala, 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. , 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. SS Nirban
                               Ms. Anita Singh
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Rajdeep Singh Chouhan for Mr.
                               Manish Tak



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI


                                            (2 of 4)                 [CW-13310/2022]

                            Judgment / Order

21/09/2022

Mr. SS Nirban, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 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 No.11508/2017 (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



                                     (3 of 4)                        [CW-13310/2022]

15.10.2022 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 copies of

said stay order passed by the departmental

authorities or competent courts in their favour by

15.10.2022.

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

(4 of 4) [CW-13310/2022]

not be bound to provide irrigation

facility/barabandi.

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 86-mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)