Dismissed

Dhole Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Sept 2024CW/14779/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bengaluru dismissed the writ petition directed towards the prayer for irrigation facilities. However, in this text, the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur disposed of the writ petition directed towards the prayer for irrigation facilities.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit land title evidence; irrigation facilities to be provided only if land falls in command area.

Dhole Khan Vs State of Rajasthan — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:37425]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14779/2024

¶4

Dhole Khan S/o Gagan Khan, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village Hariyar, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

The Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner. 3. The Dy. Commissioner, Colonization I.g.n.p., Nachana, Distt. Jaisalmer.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

The Board Of Revenue, Ajmer.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. S. S. Nirban
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Aishwarya Anand,Dy.G.C.

¶15

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶16

Order

¶17

09/09/2024

¶18

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

¶19

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner 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

[2024:RJ-JD:37425]

[CW-14779/2024]

(2 of 3)

by another coordinate Bench in decision dated 24.10.2017 passed in SBCWP No.11508/2017 (Gemar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner owns/possesses land, yet the respondents are not providing irrigation facilities to the petitioner in view of the litigation.

¶25

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 petitioner is seeking irrigation facilities to his lands, even when he is not in the command area.

¶26

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.

¶27

“(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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.

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:37425]

[CW-14779/2024]

(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.

¶34

(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.”

¶35

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶36

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶37

76-Arun/-

Dhole Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhole Khan 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

Prachi Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

Hansraj Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Sarvodaya Livestock Diploma Training Institute Vs State of Rajasthan

Dalpat Singh Mewara Vs State of Rajasthan

Baburam Vs Madanlal

Gulam Shah Vs Mehboob