Najir Ahmed vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:39134)
2025 Latest Caselaw 12609 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 12609 Raj
Judgement Date : 3 September, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Najir Ahmed vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:39134) on 3 September, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:39134]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16664/2025

Najir Ahmed S/o Shri Noordeen Khan, Aged About 67 Years,
Resident      Of     Bharewala,        Tehsil      Pokaran,          District   Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
                                                                           ----Petitioner
                                           Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, (Water Resources
         Department), Jaipur.
2.       The Tehsildar, Colonization, Tehsil Nachna No. 1, District
         Jaisalmer.
3.       The    Executive          Engineer      (Irrigation),         T.m.c.    Division,
         Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Mohangarh, District
         Jaisalmer.
4.       The Assistant Engineer (Irrigation), T.M.C. Division, Indira
         Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer.
                                                                        ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Chirag Khatri
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. Ram Avtar for
                                     Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, AAG



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

03/09/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that

the controversy raised in the present writ petition is similar to the

one raised in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18356/2024

(Aarabdeen Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) decided on

11.11.2024. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the

said writ petition while relying upon the judgments passed in a

bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.13842/2015 (Gulsher Vs. State of Rajasthan) decided on

[2025:RJ-JD:39134] (2 of 3) [CW-16664/2025]

24.10.2017 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11508/2017

(Gemar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present

writ petition may also be disposed of in the same terms as

Aarabdeen (supra). The relevant paras of the order is

reproduced herein below:

"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:39134] (3 of 3) [CW-16664/2025]

(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."

3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed

the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, however, is not in

a position to refute the fact that the issue raised in the present

writ petition is identical to the one adjudicated in the case of

Aarabdeen (supra).

4. In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition is

disposed of in the same terms as was decided in the case of

Aarabdeen (supra).

5. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

(SUNIL BENIWAL),J 44-Ashutosh/-