Fathe Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:42846)
2025 Latest Caselaw 13692 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 13692 Raj
Judgement Date : 24 September, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Fathe Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:42846) on 24 September, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:42846]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18522/2025

1.       Fathe Khan S/o Shri Deenu Khan, Aged About 69 Years,
         R/o Bahala, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
2.       Jane Khan S/o Shri Deenu Khan, Aged About 67 Years, R/
         o Bahala, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
3.       Sube Khan S/o Shri Jane Khan, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
         Bahala, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
4.       Sikiye Khan S/o Shri Jane Khan, Aged About 42 Years, R/
         o Bahala, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
5.       Khushi Mohammed S/o Shri Jane Khan, Aged About 40
         Years,      R/o    Bahala,       Tehsil      And          District     Jaisalmer
         (Rajasthan).
6.       Sabu Khan S/o Shri Fathe Khan, Aged About 45 Years, R/
         o Bahala, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).
                                                                        ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through                    The Secretary (Water
         Resources Department) Jaipur Rajasthan.
2.       The Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner.
3.       The Assistant Commissioner Colonization, Mohangarh No.
         1, Distt.- Jaisalmer.
4.       The Colonization Tehsildar, Mohangarh No. 1, Distt.-
         Jaisalmer.
5.       The Executive Engineer, (Irrigation) Mohangarh Tmc
         Division,    Indra      Gandhi       Nahar       Pariyojna           Mohangarh,
         District- Jaisalmer.
6.       The    Assistant       Engineer,      (Irrigation)         Mohangarh       Tmc
         Division,    Indra      Gandhi       Nahar       Pariyojna           Mohangarh,
         Jaisalmer.
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr.. Sharwan Singh Nirban
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Ravindra Choudhary, AGC for
                                  Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, AAG
                                  Mr. Arpit Samria, AAAG
                                  Mr. Ramavtar Sikhval, AGC
                                  Ms. Khushi Sharma


                        (Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 05:11:25 PM)
                       (Downloaded on 24/09/2025 at 08:59:51 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:42846]                      (2 of 4)                          [CW-18522/2025]




              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

24/09/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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

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 petitioners 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.

(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 05:11:25 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:42846] (3 of 4) [CW-18522/2025]

(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."

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).

(Uploaded on 24/09/2025 at 05:11:25 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:42846] (4 of 4) [CW-18522/2025]

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.