Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sadiq Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:41685) on 10 October, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JD:41685]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16686/2024
1. Sadiq Khan S/o Shri Unar Khan, Aged About 75 Years,
Resident Of Bandha, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
2. Peeru Khan S/o Shri Sadiq Khan, Aged About 45 Years,
Resident Of Bandha, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
3. Imamdeen S/o Shri Peeru Khan, Aged About 21 Years,
Resident Of Bandha, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
4. Shyah Mohd. S/o Shri Peeru Khan, Aged About 18 Years,
Resident Of Bandha, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
5. Malna Khan W/o Shri Peeru Khan, Aged About 40 Years,
Resident Of Bandha, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
6. Peerane Khan S/o Shri Sadiq Khan, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Bandha, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
7. Sure Khan S/o Shri Unar Khan, Aged About 60 Years,
Resident Of Bandha, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
8. Markan Khan S/o Shri Sure Khan, Aged About 38 Years,
Resident Of Bandha, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Water
Resources Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Colonization, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Commissioner, Colonization, Ignp, District
Jaisalmer.
4. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources-Ii, Indira
Gandhi Nahar Pariyozana, Jaisalmer.
5. The Assistant Engineer, Colonization, Sub-Division-Ii,
Water Resources-Ii, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyozana,
District Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Thanvi with Ms. Pragya
Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aishwarya Anand, Dy.GC
[2024:RJ-JD:41685] (2 of 3) [CW-16686/2024]
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
10/10/2024
1. Mr. Aishwarya Anand, learned Dy. Government Counsel puts
in appearance on behalf of the respondents.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is
squarely covered by the judgment dated 25.01.2016 passed in a
bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.13842/2015 (Gulsher Vs. State of Rajasthan), 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.).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners own/possess land, yet the respondents are not
providing irrigation facilities to the petitioners in view of the
litigation.
4. Mr. Aishwarya Anand, learned Dy. Govt. 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(s), even when they are not in the command area.
5. 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 spetitioner shall approach respective
Executive Engineer of IGNP Department within two
[2024:RJ-JD:41685] (3 of 3) [CW-16686/2024]
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."
6. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
94-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
