Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jugat Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 March, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:13108]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) S.B. Writ Contempt No. 1356/2024
Radheshyam S/o Shri Budh Ram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 6, 3
Gmd, Ganganagar, Ghamandia, Rajasthan At Present Chak No.
14 Bd Muraba No. 124/15, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sanjay Varma, Executive Engineer 23Rd Division, Indira
Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(2) S.B. Writ Contempt No. 1357/2024
Arjan Singh S/o Shri Prabhu Singh, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
Chak 4 Pwm, Village Sankhla, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Sanjeev Verma, The Executive Engineer, 23Rd Division,
Indira Gandhi Nahar Project, Mohangarh, District
Jaisalmer (Raj.).
3. Mahendra Kumar, The Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division-
I, 23Rd Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Project,
Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
Connected With
(3) S.B. Writ Contempt No. 1358/2024
Rewant Singh S/o Shri Prabhu Singh, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Chak 5 Pwm, Village Sankhla, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Sanjeev Verma, The Executive Engineer, 23Rd Division,
[2025:RJ-JD:13108] (2 of 5) [WCP-1356/2024]
Indira Gandhi Nahar Project, Mohangarh, District
Jaisalmer (Raj.)
3. Mahendra Kumar, The Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division-
I, 23Rd Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Project,
Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
(4) S.B. Writ Contempt No. 1360/2024
Jugat Singh S/o Shri Laxman Singh, Aged About 66 Years, R/o
Chak 5 Pwm, Village Sankhla, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Sanjeev Verma, The Executive Engineer, 23Rd Division,
Indira Gandhi Nahar Project, Mohangarh, District
Jaisalmer (Raj.).
3. Mahendra Kumar, The Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division,
23Rd Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Project, Mohangarh,
District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
(5) S.B. Writ Contempt No. 1361/2024
Shiv Nath Singh S/o Shri Laxman Singh, Aged About 61 Years,
R/o Chak 5 Pwm, Village Sankhla, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Sanjeev Verma, The Executive Engineer, 23Rd Division,
Indira Gandhi Nahar Project, Mohangarh, District
Jaisalmer (Raj.).
3. Mahendra Kumar, The Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division-
1, 23Rd Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Project,
Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
[2025:RJ-JD:13108] (3 of 5) [WCP-1356/2024]
(6) S.B. Writ Contempt No. 1371/2024
Chun Singh @ Chon Singh S/o Shri Laxman Singh, Aged About
55 Years, R/o Chak 4 Pwm, Village Sankhla, District Jaisalmer
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Sanjeev Verma, The Executive Engineer, 23Rd Division,
Indira Gandhi Nahar Project, Mohangarh, District
Jaisalmer (Raj.).
3. Mahendra Kumar, The Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division-
I, 23Rd Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Project,
Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
(7) S.B. Writ Contempt No. 1392/2024
Siriya Kanwar W/o Indra Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Chak 4
Pwm, Village Sankhla, District Jaisalmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Irrigation, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Sanjeev Verma, The Executive Engineer, 23Rd Division,
Indira Gandhi Nahar Project, Mohangarh, District
Jaisalmer (Raj.)
3. Mahendra Kumar, The Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division-
I, 23Rd Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Project,
Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.D. Khatri
Mr. R.S. Champawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arpit Samriya AAAG
Mr. Ravindra Choudhary, AGC for
Mr. Nathus Singh Rathore, AAG
[2025:RJ-JD:13108] (4 of 5) [WCP-1356/2024]
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
07/03/2025
1. By way of these contempt petitions, the petitioners have
alleged non-compliance of the orders passed in their respective
writ petitions.
2. Mr. L.D. Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that all the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were decided in
light of the judgment in the case of Gulsher vs. State of
Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13842/2015) and the
petitioners had moved representation(s) alongwith the requisite
documents, but in spite of this, the respondents have refused to
grant irrigation facilities to the petitioners.
3. Mr. Arpit Samariya, learned counsel for the respondent -
State on the basis of reply, submitted that the respondents have
decided to grant irrigation facilities to the petitioners by way of
order/letter placed on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order
issued by the irrigation authorities is only for one crop season,
whereas there is no restriction in the order of the Court to confine
these irrigation facilities for a particular crop or for a particular
period.
5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent - State
submitted that the petitioners may apply afresh so that their
application for granting irrigation facilities can be considered.
6. According to this Court, asking the petitioners to apply for
irrigation facilities again and again is not proper and the same is
not only unnecessary, but leads to harassment of the litigants, on
[2025:RJ-JD:13108] (5 of 5) [WCP-1356/2024]
the other hand it increases the administrative burden on the
respondents.
7. While disposing of these contempt petitions and discharging
the contempt notices, the respondents are directed to continue
the supply of the irrigation facilities to the petitioners. The
respondents can ask the petitioners each year in the first week of
April to furnish current status of the case, which is said to have
been pending.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
Mak - 108, 109 to 112,
114, 115
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
