Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Aam Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7487 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 7487 Raj
Judgement Date : 20 September, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Aam Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 20 September, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:30674]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12740/2023

1.       Aam Singh S/o Lt. Shri Multan Singh, Aged About 41
         Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Naya Eta, Via Nachna,
         Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
2.       Tej Singh S/o Lt. Shri Multan Singh, Aged About 43 Years,
         By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Naya Eta, Via Nachna, Tehsil
         Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
3.       Smt. Jasoda W/o Lt. Shri Multan Singh, Aged About 58
         Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Naya Eta, Via Nachna,
         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.   Colonization          Commissioner          Cum     Allotting
         Authority, Nachana, Distt. Jaisalmer.
4.       The Colonization Tehsil, Nachana No. 1, Distt. Jaisalmer.
5.       The    Executive       Engineer,      24Th      Khand/division,     Indra
         Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna Phalodi, District Jodhpur.
                                                                  ----Respondents


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



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                      Order

20/09/2023

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.




                      (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:20:19 AM)
 [2023:RJ-JD:30674]                      (2 of 3)                        [CW-12740/2023]



3.    Mr.    Parwat    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 SBCWPNo.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 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.



                        (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:20:19 AM)
                                    [2023:RJ-JD:30674]                      (3 of 3)                             [CW-12740/2023]


                                           (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.

333-Zeeshan

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter