Gul Mohammad vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8649 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:35653] (1 of 3) [CW-16615/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16615/2023

1. Gul Mohammad S/o Late Shri Rahim Khan, Aged About 74 Years, Caste Muslman R/o Bharewala, Tehsil - Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

2. Lrs Of Faij Mohammad S/o Rahim Khan, Through 2/1. Ajija W/o Lt. Sh. Faij. Mohd., Aged About 69 Years, Caste Muslman R/o Bharewala, Tehsil - Pokaran, District - Jaisalmer (Rajasthan) 2/2. Habib Kha S/o Lt. Sh. Faij Mohd., Aged About 46 Years, Caste Muslman R/o Bharewala, Tehsil - Pokaran, District - Jaisalmer (Rajasthan) 2/3. Jinde Kha S/o Lt. Sh. Faij Mohd., Aged About 41 Years, Caste Muslman R/o Bharewala, Tehsil - Pokaran, District - Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

----Petitioners 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., Nachna, Distt. - Jaisalmer.

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

Jaisalmer.

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

6. The Assistant Engineer (Irrigation), Sub Division Ii Tmc Division Indra Gandhi Nehar Pariyojna Mohangarh, Jaisalmer

7. The Board Of Revenue, Ajmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parwat Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajdeep Singh Chouhan for Mr. Manish Tak, Dy. G.C.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

18/10/2023

[2023:RJ-JD:35653] (2 of 3) [CW-16615/2023]

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

GC 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. 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 SBCWPNo.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.

[2023:RJ-JD:35653] (3 of 3) [CW-16615/2023]

(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 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 163-AnilKC/sudheer-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)