Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Fathe Khan vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 14 September, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:29529] (1 of 4) [CW-13836/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13836/2023
1. Fathe Khan S/o Shri Deenu Khan, Aged About 67 Years,
Caste Musalman, R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer
(Rajasthan).
2. Jane Khan S/o Shri Deenu Khan, Aged About 65 Years,
Caste Musalman, R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer
(Rajasthan).
3. Sube Khan S/o Shri Jane Khan, Aged About 42 Years,
Caste Musalman, R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer
(Rajasthan).
4. Sikiya Khan S/o Shri Jane Khan, Aged About 40 Years,
Caste Musalman, R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer
(Rajasthan).
5. Khushi Mohammed S/o Shri Jane Khan, Aged About 38
Years, Caste Musalman, R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District
Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
6. Sabu Khan S/o Shri Fathe Khan, Aged About 43 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 (Irrigation), Mohangarh Tmc
Division, Indra Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna, Mohangarh,
District Jaisalmer.
6. The Assistant Engineer (Irrigation), Mohangarh Tmc
Division, Indra Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna, Mohangarh,
Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:57:00 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:29529] (2 of 4) [CW-13836/2023]
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anita Singh
Mr. S.S. Nirban
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajdeep Singh Chouhan, for Mr.
Manish Tak, Dy. GC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
14/09/2023
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 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 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
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:57:00 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:29529] (3 of 4) [CW-13836/2023]
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 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
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:57:00 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:29529] (4 of 4) [CW-13836/2023]
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.
76-/Jitender//-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
