HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 241/2025 1. Aamad Khan S/o Aldeen Khan, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village Panche Ka Talla, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer. 2. Sartaj S/o Aamad Khan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Panche Ka Talla, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer. 3. Saidulla S/o Aamad Khan, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Vil- lage Panche Ka Talla, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer. 4. Shahbaz Khan S/o Aamad Khan, Aged About 20 Years, R/ o Village Panche Ka Talla, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer. 5. Hakam S/o Aamad Khan, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Vil- lage Panche Ka Talla, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, (Water Re- sources 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), 28Th Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Phalodi, District Phalodi, Raj. 6. The Assistant Engineer (Irrigation), 28Th Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Phalodi, District Phalodi, Raj. 7. The Executive Engineer (Irrigation), Tmc Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer, Raj. 8. The Assistant Engineer (Irrigation), Tmc Division, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Binja Ram. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arpit Samaria for Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, AAG. (2 of 3) [CW-241/2025] HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI Order 09/01/2025 1. Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, learned Additional Advocate General puts in appearance on behalf of the respondents. 2. 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 Ra- jasthan & Ors.). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners owns/possesses land, yet the respondents are not providing irriga- tion facilities to the petitioners in view of the litigation. 4. Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, learned AAG appearing for the re- spondents 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 their lands, even when they are not in the command area. 5. Having heard rival submissions, the present writ petition is dis- posed 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. “(i) The petitioner shall approach respective Executive Engineer of IGNP Department within two weeks from today and furnish documentary evidence regarding (3 of 3) [CW-241/2025] their ownership and title of the agriculture lands, which is in their possession. (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 depart- mental 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 Depart- ment after verifying the documentary evidence, fur- nished by the petitioner, or after taking into considera- tion the stay order passed in their favour by the de- partmental authorities or competent courts shall con- sider the cases of the petitioner for inclusion of his names in barabandi for ensuing years strictly in accor- dance with law. (iv) It is made clear that the petitioner, who is presently getting the irrigation facilities to their agri- culture 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 ir- rigation facility/barabandi.” 6. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly. (DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 94-pradeep/-