Disposed

Saleman v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Aug 2024CW/10791/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition by following precedents in Gulsher and Gemar Singh, directing the Executive Engineer to consider petitioners for irrigation inclusion if they furnish proof of ownership or title stays, provided their lands fall within the command area.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Executive Engineer to consider petitioners for irrigation inclusion upon verification of documents, subject to command area status.

Saleman Vs State of Rajasthan — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:34209]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10791/2024

¶4

Saleman S/o Shri Kutubudin, Aged About 59 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bahla, Tehsil And District- Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

¶5

Sher Mohd. S/o Shri Kutubudin, Aged About 74 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bahla, Tehsil And District- Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

¶6

Kamu @ Kayam Deen S/o Shri Kutubudin, Aged About 69 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bahla, Tehsil And DistrictJaisalmer (Rajasthan)

¶7

Gajee Khan S/o Shri Kutubudin, Aged About 66 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Bahla, Tehsil And District- Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

¶8

Heeru Khan S/o Shri Kutubudin, Aged About 64 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. 3. The Dy. Commissioner, Colonization, I.g.n.p., Nachana, Distt.-Jaisalmer.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶19

: Mr. SS Nirban : Mr. Aishwarya Anand, Dy.GC

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:34209]

[CW-10791/2024]

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶24

Order

¶25

20/08/2024

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

“(i) The petitioner shall approach respective Executive Engineer of IGNP Department within two

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:34209]

[CW-10791/2024]

weeks from today and furnish documentary evidence regarding their ownership and title of the agriculture lands, which is in their possession.

¶37

(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.

¶38

(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.

¶39

(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.

¶40

(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.”

¶41

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶42

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶43

49-raksha/-

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

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