Khangar Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4760 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4760 Raj
Judgement Date : 16 January, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Khangar Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 January, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:2822]

HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 249/2025

Khangar Singh S/o Achal Singh, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Village Bhadriya, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer, Raj.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       The State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, (Water
         Resources Department), Jaipur, Raj.
2.       The Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner, Raj.
3.       The Dy. Commissioner, Colonization, Indra Gandhi Nahar
         Priyojana, Nachana, District Jaisalmer, Raj.
4.       The Tehsildar, Colonization, Tehsil Nachna-2, District
         Jaisalmer, Raj.
5.       The Executive Engineer (Irrigation), 28Th Division, Indira
         Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Phalodi, District Phalodi, Raj.
6.       The Assistant Engineer (Irrigation), 28Th Division, Indira
         Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Phalodi, District Phalodi, Raj.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Binja Ram
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, AAG with
                                   Mr. Ravindra Chowdhary



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

16/01/2025

1. Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, learned Additional Advocate General

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 coordinate Bench in decision dated 24.10.2017 passed

[2025:RJ-JD:2822] (2 of 3) [CW-249/2025]

in SBCWP No.11508/2017 (Gemar Singh Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners

owns/possesses land, yet the respondents are not providing

irrigation facilities to the petitioner in view of the litigation.

4. Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, learned 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 petitioner is seeking irrigation facilities to his lands, even when

he is 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 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.

[2025:RJ-JD:2822] (3 of 3) [CW-249/2025]

(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.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 63-amit/-