Allowed

Saleman v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Aug 2021CW/10664/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking irrigation facilities for cultivable lands. Petitioners allowed on condition that their lands fall within the culturable command area and they furnish ownership documents. Stay application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to be given irrigation facilities only if their lands fall in the command area; they must submit documents or stay orders by 15.09.2021.

Saleman Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10664/2021

¶4

Saleman S/o Shri Kutubudin, Aged About 56 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bahla, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).

¶5

Sher Mohd. S/o Shri Kutubudin, Aged About 71 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bahla, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).

¶6

Kamu @ Kayam Deen S/o Shri Kutubudin, Aged About 66 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bahla, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).

¶7

Gajee Khan S/o Shri Kutubudin, Aged About 63 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bahla, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).

¶8

Heeru Khan S/o Shri Kutubudin, Aged About 61 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bahla, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Water Resources Department) Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶12

The Commissioner, Colonization, Bikaner.

¶13

The Dy. Commissioner, Colonization I.g.n.p., Nachana, Distt. Jaisalmer.

¶14

The Colonization Tehsildar, Nachana No. 2, Distt. Jaisalmer.

¶15

The Executive Engineer, Shri Mohangarh Tmc Division, Indra Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna Shri Mohangarh, Jaisalmer.

¶16

The Assistant Engineer, Shri Mohangarh Tmc Division, Indra Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna Shri Mohangarh, Jaisalmer.

¶17

The Additional Commissioner, Colonization And Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaisalmer.

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Tak

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[CW-10664/2021]

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶23

Order

¶24

13/08/2021

¶25

1 . Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that number of petitions involving identical grievance have been allowed by this Court, vide judgment dated 25.1.2016, passed in a bunch of writ petitions led by SBCWP No.13842/2015 (Gulsher Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan &Ors.); 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.) .

¶26

2. Mr. Manish Tak, learned counsel appearing 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 land, even when they are not in the command area.

¶27

3. 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.

¶28

(i). The petitioners shall approach respective Executive Engineer of IGNP Department by 15.09.2021 and furnish documentary evidence regarding their ownership and title of the agriculture lands, which is in their possession. (ii). Those petitioners, who are not having any documentary evidence regarding their ownership and title of the said agriculture land but their dispute regarding title of the said agriculture land is pending either before departmental authorities or before

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[CW-10664/2021]

¶31

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 by 15.09.2021.

¶32

(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 petitioners for inclusion of their names in barabandi for ensuing years strictly in accordance with law. (iv). It is made clear that the petitioners, who are presently getting the irrigation facilities to their agriculture fields, will continue to get the same till next barabandi is fixed by the IGNP Department.

¶33

(v). In case land(s) for which the petitioners are claiming irrigation facilities, do not fall in culturable command area, the respondents shall not be bound to provide irrigation facility /barabandi.

¶34

4. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶35

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶36

59-Arun/-

Saleman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naniya @ Nana Vs State

Indrachand Vs Kanku Kumari

Rajiv Kachhwaha Vs State and Ors.

Gaji Khan Vs State and Ors.

Smt. Sukhadi Vs Board of Revenue for Rajasthan

Kalu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan