B.S. Chandra, J.-In these petitions, the common questions of facts and law are involved and the common impugned order dated 18-10-2000 passed by the Superintending Engineer, respondent No. 2, is under challenge. By the said impugned order, respondent No. 2 has passed certain directions to respondent No. 1 to readjust/remodel certain outlets.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that in all these petitions, petitioners are the agriculture tenure-holders having irrigation facilities and they are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18-10-2000. The writ petitions have been filed on the grounds that under the garb of issuing the rectification orders, the Appellate Authority has interfered with the irrigation outlets and the order stands vitiated for the reason that he is the Appellate Authority under the Act and the same could not have been passed by him as it deprived the petitioners from the right of appeal. It has further been contended that no notice under Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Drainage Rules, 1957 (for short, “the Rules, 1957”) had been given to the petitioners.

3. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that it is