Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Alla Basaya vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 25 November, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:50823]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22704/2025
1. Alla Basaya S/o Late Shri Khanu Khan, Aged About 75
Years, R/o Bajju, Tehsil Kolayat Distt. Bikaner.
2. Fattu Khan S/o Late Shri Khanu Khan, Aged About 65
Years, R/o Bajju, Tehsil Kolayat Distt. Bikaner.
3. Noor Mohd. S/o Late Shri Khanu Khan, Aged About 60
Years, R/o Bajju, Tehsil Kolayat Distt. Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Water
Resources Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department,
Circle, Bajju, Bikaner.
3. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department,
Bikaner.
4. The Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department,
Bajju, Bikaner.
5. Ziledar, Water Resources Department, Bajju, Bikaner.
6. Patwari, Water Resources Department, Bajju, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mayank Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh for
Mr. N.S. Rathore, AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
25/11/2025
1. Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate, associate to Mr. Nathu Singh
Rathore, learned Additional Advocate General, puts in appearance
on behalf of the respondents.
2. An application (No.01/2025) has also been filed by learned
counsel for the petitioners for impleading respondents Nos.7 and 8
as party respondents in the instant writ petition.
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 01:14:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50823] (2 of 3) [CW-22704/2025]
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed. Amended cause title in this regard, has been filed along
with the application and the same is also taken on record.
4. 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 Singh
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners owns/possesses land, yet the respondents are not
providing irrigation facilities to the petitioner in view of the
litigation, though they are having interim order in their favour.
6. Learned counsel 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 lands, even when they are not in the command
area.
7. 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 petitioners shall be given irrigation
facilities only, if, their 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
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 01:14:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50823] (3 of 3) [CW-22704/2025]
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.
(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."
8. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
74-/Devesh/-
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 01:14:46 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
