Nuri vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9257 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:38332]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17806/2023

Nuri W/o Late Shareef Khan, Aged About 63 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Village Basanpeer Juni, District Jaisalmer.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Colonization Ignp, Nachna, District Jaisalmer.

3. Executive Engineer, Water Course, Division Ignp, Jaisalmer.

4. Divisional Irrigation Officer Cum Superintending Engineer, Water Course, Divisional Ignp, Jaisalmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Ramdev For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dilip Solanki for Mr. Manish Tak, Dy.GC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

07/11/2023

1. Mr. Dilip Solanki for Mr. Manish Tak, learned Dy. Govt.

Counsel is appearing on behalf of the respondents.

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

matter is finally heard and decided.

3. Mr. Shreyansh Ramdev, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner owns/possess land, yet the

respondents are not providing irrigation facilities to the petitioner

in view of the litigation, though she is having interim order in her

favour.

[2023:RJ-JD:38332] (2 of 3) [CW-17806/2023]

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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. Dilip Solanki 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 petitioner is seeking irrigation facilities

to her land, even when she is 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 petitioner shall be given irrigation

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

"(i) The petitioner shall approach respective Executive Engineer of IGNP Department within two weeks from today and furnish documentary evidence regarding their ownership and title of the agriculture lands, which is in their possession.

(ii) The petitioner, who is not having any documentary evidence regarding his 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

[2023:RJ-JD:38332] (3 of 3) [CW-17806/2023]

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 petitioner, 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 petitioner for inclusion of his names in barabandi for ensuing years strictly in accordance with law.

(iv) It is made clear that the petitioner, who is 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 petitioner is 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 14-Anil Singh/SunilS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)