Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Faju Khan vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 25 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:43170]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19110/2025
1. Faju Khan S/o Girdhari Khan, Aged About 82 Years, R/o
Sakdiya, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
2. Inayat Tula S/o Faju Khan, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Sakdiya, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
3. Hidayat Tula S/o Faju Khan, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Sakdiya, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
4. Riyaj Ali S/o Faju Khan, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Sakdiya, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
5. Sarma W/o Faju Khan, Aged About 82 Years, R/o Sakdiya,
Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary (Water
Resources Department), Jaipur, Raj.
2. The Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner, Raj.
3. The Dy. Commissioner, Colonization, Indra Gandhi Nahar
Pariyojana, Nachana, District Jaisalmer, Raj.
4. The Tehsildar, Colonization, Tehsil Nachana-2, District
Jaisalmer, Raj.
5. The Executive Engineer (Irrigation), T.m.c. Division,
Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Mohangarh, District
Jaisalmer, Raj.
6. The Assistant Engineer (Irrigation), T.m.c. Division, Indira
Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer,
Raj.
7. The Executive Engineer (Irrigation), 28Th Division, Indira
Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Phalodi, District Phalodi, Raj.
8. The Assistant Engineer (Irrigation), 28Th Division, Indira
Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Phalodi, District Phalodi, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Binja Ram
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Avtar Sikhwal, AGC
Mr. Arpit Samaria, Ms. Khushi
Sharma, Mr. Digvijay Singh, Mr.
Ravindra Chaudhary, AGC for
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 10:45:11 AM)
(Downloaded on 27/09/2025 at 01:17:46 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43170] (2 of 4) [CW-19110/2025]
Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
25/09/2025
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 in the
case of Aarabdeen (supra). The relevant part 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 26/09/2025 at 10:45:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43170] (3 of 4) [CW-19110/2025]
(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 26/09/2025 at 10:45:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43170] (4 of 4) [CW-19110/2025]
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.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
243-ajayS/-
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 10:45:11 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
