Birbarl Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:44833)
2023 Latest Caselaw 11045 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 11045 Raj
Judgement Date : 21 December, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Birbarl Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:44833) on 21 December, 2023

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:44833]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19518/2023

1.       Birbal Khan S/o Shri Aamad Khan, Aged About 47 Years,
         Caste Musalman R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District -
         Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
2.       Dilwar Khan S/o Shri Ismail Khan, Aged About 50 Years,
         Caste Musalman R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District -
         Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
3.       Punal Khan S/o Shri Aamad Khan, Aged About 57 Years,
         Caste Musalman R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District -
         Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
4.       Birbal Khan S/o Shri Manji Khan, Aged About 32 Years,
         Caste Musalman R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District -
         Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
5.       Chnesar Khan S/o Shri Ismail Khan, Aged About 47 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.
         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, District - Jaisalmer.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Ms. Anita Singh
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Rajdeep Singh Chouhan for
                                Mr. Manish Tak, Dy.GC



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

21/12/2023

1. Mr. Rajdeep Singh Chouhan for Mr. Manish Tak, learned Dy.

Govt. Counsel is appearing on behalf of the respondents.

[2023:RJ-JD:44833] (2 of 3) [CW-19518/2023]

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

matter is finally heard and decided.

3. Ms. Anita Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the petitioners own/possess 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.

4. 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.).

5. Mr. Rajdeep Singh Chouhan for 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.

6. 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 within two weeks from today and furnish documentary evidence

[2023:RJ-JD:44833] (3 of 3) [CW-19518/2023]

regarding their ownership and title of the agriculture lands, which is in their possession.

(ii) The petitioners, who are not having any documentary evidence regarding their ownership and title of the said agriculture land but the 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 within two weeks from today.

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

7. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 62-Shahenshah/-