Amolakh Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:42871)
2024 Latest Caselaw 9464 Raj

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9464 Raj
Judgement Date : 19 October, 2024

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Amolakh Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:42871) on 19 October, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:42871]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17308/2024

1.       Amolakh Ram S/o Deji Ram, Aged About 79 Years,
         Nachana, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)
2.       Kirta Ram S/o Daya Ram, Aged About 61 Years, Nachana,
         Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)
3.       Chetana Ram S/o Daya Ram, Aged About 46 Years,
         Nachana, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)
4.       Ganga Ram S/o Amolakh Ram, Aged About 41 Years,
         Nachana, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)
5.       Goradhan Ram S/o Amolakh Ram, Aged About 57 Years,
         Nachana, 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, I.g.n.p, Nachana,
         Distt. - Jaisalmer.
4.       The     Colonization       Tehsildar,        Nachana         No.2,   Distt.
         Jaisalmer.
5.       The    Executive       Engineer,      24Th      Khand/division,      Indra
         Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana Phalodi, District Jodhpur.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Pawan Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. N.S. Rathore, AAG



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

19/10/2024

1. Shri Nathu Singh Rathore, AAG puts in appearance on behalf

of the respondents.

[2024:RJ-JD:42871] (2 of 3) [CW-17308/2024]

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 co-ordinate Bench in decision

dated24.10.2017 passed in SBCWP No.11508/2017 (Gemar

Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioner owns/possesses land, yet the respondents are not

providing irrigation facilities to the petitioner in view of the

litigation, though he is having interim order in his favour.

4. Shri Nathu Singh Rathore, AAG 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 his 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, his 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

[2024:RJ-JD:42871] (3 of 3) [CW-17308/2024]

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 the iragriculture 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.

(FARJAND ALI),J 345-divya/-