Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sattar Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:43553) on 23 October, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JD:43553]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17623/2024
Sattar Khan S/o Shri Deene Khan, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of Panche Ka Tala, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, (Water Resources
Department), Jaipur.
2. The Tehsildar, Colonization, Nachna No. 2, District
Jaisalmer.
3. The Executive Engineer (Irrigation), T.M.C Division, Indra
Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer.
4. The Assistant Engineer (Irrigation), T.M.C Division, Indra
Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chirag Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aishwarya Anand, Dy.G.C.
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
23/10/2024
1. Mr. Aishwarya Anand, learned Dy. Government Counsel puts
in appearance on behalf of the respondents.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 co-ordinate Bench in decision dated 24.10.2017
[2024:RJ-JD:43553] (2 of 3) [CW-17623/2024]
passed in SBCWP No.11508/2017 (Gemar Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
owns/possesses land, yet the respondents are not providing
irrigation facilities to the petitioner in view of the litigation, though
she is having interim order in her favour.
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 petitioner is seeking irrigation facilities to her
lands, 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 petitioner shall be given irrigation
facilities only, if, her 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
[2024:RJ-JD:43553] (3 of 3) [CW-17623/2024]
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
130-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
