The procedure for making material changes in an established system of canal distribution, including the requirement of notice and the roles of the D.I.O. and S.I.O., as prescribed under Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1957 (as amended), is mandatory and must be strictly followed.

LODHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THESE are two connected special appeals directed against a common order dated Dec. 19, 1978 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petitioners writ applications registered as S. B. Civil Writ Peti-tions Nos. 858 and 857 of 1978, were dismissed. The dispute between the parties relates to removal and shifting of outlets of water in Chak Nos. 19 N. W. D. and 20 N. W. D. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 857 of 1978 was in respect of Chak No. 20 N. W. D. whereas S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 858 of 1978 was in respect of Chak No. 19 N. W. D.

( 2 ) THE Divisional Irrigation Officer, Rawatsar, who is also Executive Engineer, rawatsar (hereinafter referred to as "d. I. O. "), by his letter dated July 1, 1978 (Ex. 3), submitted his recommendation to the Superintending Irrigation Officer, hanumangarh Junction, who is also Superintending Engineer (hereinafter referred to as "section I. O. "), that the outlet No. 20 N. W. D. may be shifted to stone-line No. 124/10 (running south to north) from stone-line 134/10 (running east to west ). As regards outlet No. 19 N. W-D. , he recommended that the present outlet position may be kept as it is. On receipt of this recommendation the S. I. O. , by his two aeparate orders dated October 26, 1978 (both marked ex. 2), ordered that the outlet in Chak No. 19 N. W. D. be shifted from stone no. 134/17. 8 to stone No. 134/10. 5 and outlet No. 20 N. W. D. be shifited from stone No. 134/10 (east-west) to stone No. 134/10. 20 (south-north) situate at a distance of 180 feet from the outlet in existence. Aggrieved by the orders of the s. I. O. , the petitioner filed writ petitions to this Court on two grounds, namely, (i) that no notice as required under rule 11 (2) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and drainage "rules, 1957 (as amended) (which will hereafter be referred to as "the rules of 1957") was given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed by the S. I. O. ; and (ii) that the S. I. O. had no jurisdiction to pass original Order for the change in the outlet. The original order for change of outlet could Have been passed only by the D. I. O. and the S. I. O. had jurisdiction to hear appeal from the original order. Consequently, the order passed by the S. I. O. is ultra vires. Notice "to show cause why a rule be not issued", was given to the non-petitioners by the learned Single Judge. The non-petitioners opposed the issue of rule and contended, inter alia, that the petitioner had no locus standi to file writ petitions inasmuch as he had no land in chaks in question and that, in any case, the petitioner had not sustained any substantial Injury by change of the outlets.

( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge held that the petitioner has his land in Chaks in question and therefore, has locus standi to approach this Court. However, on merits he found that the petitioner had sufficient notice of the proposed change in the outlets. As to the second contention raised by the petitioner, the learned single Judge held that the matter had been first considered by the D. I. O. after ascertaining the views of all the cultivators including the petitioner and his brother, and thereafter he had sent his recommendation to the S. I. O. and that the S. I, O. , in his turn, had given a further opportunity to all the cultivators to present their points of view before passing the impugned orders. He held that the recommendation made by the D. I. O. must be taken to the nature of an original order, which was confirmed by the S. I. O. , in one case and reversed by him in the other case. In this view of the matter, he found that there was contravention of Rule 11. In the ultimate analysis, the learned Single Judge also held that there had been no substantial failure of justice nor any injury had been caused to the petitioner by the impugned orders. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petitions, the petitioner has filed those two special appeals.

( 4 ) WE have