Disposed

Gulam Nabi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Aug 2024CW/10156/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners owning or possessing agricultural land sought irrigation facilities from the IGNP Department despite ongoing litigation over their lands. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the directions given in the Court's earlier Gulsher and Gemar Singh decisions.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions to furnish ownership evidence or stay orders within two weeks for consideration for barabandi inclusion; irrigation only if land falls within culturable command ar

Gulam Nabi Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:34207]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10156/2024

¶4

Gulam Nabi S/o Fazal Khan, Aged About 81 Years, Village Mohangarh, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

¶5

Janani D/o Fazal Khan, Aged About 91 Years, Village Mohangarh, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

¶6

Sahzat S/o Fazal Khan, Aged About 76 Years, Village Mohangarh, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

¶7

Allarakh Khan S/o Gulam Nabi, Aged About 48 Years, Village Mohangarh, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

¶8

Ramzan Khan S/o Gulam Nabi, Aged About 46 Years, Village Mohangarh, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

¶9

Aazam Khan S/o Gulam Nabi, Aged About 44 Years, Village Mohangarh, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

¶10

Jamme Khan S/o Gulam Nabi, Aged About 36 Years, Village Mohangarh, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

¶11

Mohd. Rashid S/o Gulam Nabi, Aged About 28 Years, Village Mohangarh, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

¶12

Yakub Khan S/o Gulam Nabi, Aged About 26 Years, Village Mohangarh, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

¶13

Amri D/o Gulam Nabi, Aged About 50 Years, Village Mohangarh, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

¶14

Jiyade D/o Gulam Nabi, Aged About 39 Years, Village Mohangarh, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

¶15

Jhamni D/o Gulam Nabi, Aged About 31 Years, Village Mohangarh, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

¶16

Bachhi D/o Fazal Khan, Aged About 79 Years, Village Mohangarh, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

¶17

----Petitioners

¶18

Versus

¶19

State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner.

¶20

Commissioner, Colonization, Bikaner. 3. Divisional Irrigation Officer Cum Executive Engineer, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna, Colonization, Tehsil Mohangarh No.1, District Jaisalmer.

¶21

Executive Engineer, 23Rd Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar

[2024:RJ-JD:34207]

[CW-10156/2024]

(2 of 3)

Pariyojna, Colonization, Tehsil Mohangarh No.1, District Jaisalmer.

¶26

----Respondents

¶27

For Petitioner(s) : Mr,. Manas Ranchor Khatri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aishwarya Anand, Dy.GC

¶28

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶29

Order

¶30

20/08/2024

¶31

Mr. Aishwarya Anand, learned Dy. Government Counsel puts in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

¶32

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is 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.).

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners own/possess land, yet the respondents are not providing irrigation facilities to the petitioners in view of the litigation.

¶34

Mr. Aishwarya Anand, learned Dy. Govt. 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 lands, even when they are not in the command area.

[2024:RJ-JD:34207]

[CW-10156/2024]

(3 of 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.

¶39

“(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.

¶40

(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.

¶41

(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.

¶42

(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.

¶43

(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.”

¶44

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶45

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶46

48-raksha/-

Gulam Nabi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulam Nabi 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

Rishabh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishna Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Udaipur Development Authority Vs Mangilal

Shyam Sundar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shree Ram School of Nursing Vs the State of Rajathan

Tulsidas Vs Municipal Board