Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nijam Deen vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 October, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:35170] (1 of 3) [CW-16428/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16428/2023
1. Nijam Deen S/o Hasan Khan, Aged About 66 Years, By
Caste Muslanman, R/o Village Panche Ka Talla, Tehsil
Pokran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
2. Lal Deen S/o Nijam Deen, Aged About 39 Years, By Caste
Muslanman, R/o Village Panche Ka Talla, Tehsil Pokran,
District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, (Water Resources
Depaetment), Jaipur, Raj.
2. The Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner, Raj.
3. The Dy. Commissioner, Colonization, Indra Gandhi Nahar
Pariyajana, Nachana, District Jaisalmer, Raj.
4. The Tehsildar, Colonization, Tehsil Nachna-1, District
Jaisalmer, Raj.
5. The Executive Engineer (Irrigation), T.m.c. Division,
Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Mohangarh, District
Jaisalmer, Raj.
6. The Assistant Engineer (Irrigation), T.m.c. Division, Indira
Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer,
Raj.
7. The Executive Engineer (Irrigation), 28Th Division, Indira
Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Phalodi, District Jodhpur, Raj.
8. The Assistant Engineer (Irrigation), 28Th Division, Indira
Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Phalodi, District Jodhpur, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Jajra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Tak, Dy.G.C.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
16/10/2023
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:47:07 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:35170] (2 of 3) [CW-16428/2023]
1. 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. B.R. Jajra, 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. 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 lands, 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 petitioner shall approach respective Executive
Engineer of IGNP Department within two weeks from
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:47:07 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:35170] (3 of 3) [CW-16428/2023]
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 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.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
181-AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
