Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Geeta Kanwar vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 October, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:44732]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20220/2025
Smt. Geeta Kanwar W/o Shivpal Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/
o Ajasar, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, (Water
Resources Department), Jaipur, Raj.
2. The Commissioner Colonization Department, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
3. The Dy. Commissioner, Colonization, Indra Gandhi Nahar
Priyajana, Nachana, District Jaisalmer, Raj.
4. The Tehsildar, Colonization, Tehsil Nachna-2, District
Jaisalmer, Raj.
5. The Executive Engineer (Irrigation), Charnawala 2Nd
Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Bikampur,
District Bikaner, Raj.
6. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Irrigation), Charnawala
2Nd Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Bikampur,
District Bikaner, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Jajra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arpit Samaria for
Mr. N.S. Rathore, AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
13/10/2025
1. Mr. Arpit Samaria, Advocate, associate to Mr. Nathu Singh
Rathore, learned Additional Advocate General 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
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:14:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44732] (2 of 3) [CW-20220/2025]
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.).
3. 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.
4. 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.
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 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 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
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:14:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44732] (3 of 3) [CW-20220/2025]
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.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
176-/Devesh/-
(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:14:17 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
