Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urse Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:42851) on 19 October, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:42851]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16502/2024
1. Urse Khan S/o Shri Rahman Khan, Aged About 41 Years,
Resident Of Bandha, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
2. Raban Khan S/o Shri Rahman Khan, Aged About 32
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 Resource-II, Indira Gandhi
Nahar Pariyozana, Jaisalmer.
5. The Assistant Engineer, Colonization, Sub-Division-II,
Water Courses-II, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyozana,
District Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Thanvi with
Ms. Pragya Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aishwarya Anand, Dy.G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
19/10/2024
1. Learned counsel for the parties are agreeable that the
controversy involved in the instant writ petition stands
covered by the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16686/2024 :
Sadiq Khan and Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan and
[2024:RJ-JD:42851] (2 of 3) [CW-16502/2024]
Anr. decided on 10.10.2024. The said order is reproduced
herein below:-
"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 SinghVs. 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), withfurther
directions that the petitioners shall be given
irrigationfacilities only, if, their land(s) fall in the
command area.
"(i) The spetitioner shall approach respective
Executive Engineer of IGNP Department within
two weeks from today and furnish documentary
evidence regarding their ownership and title of
[2024:RJ-JD:42851] (3 of 3) [CW-16502/2024]
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."
2. Following the judgment referred (supra), the instant writ
petition is disposed of in the same terms as it is mentioned
in the above case.
(FARJAND ALI),J
17-Ashutosh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
