The Superintending Engineer had the jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appeal filed by respondents 5 and 6, and their claim did not fall under Section 53 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, which provides for the resolution of disputes regarding the use, construction, or maintenance of water courses.

RAJINDER SACHAR, J.

( 1 ) THERE is an existing water course from stone No. 92/228 to 90/228 from which the petitioners and respondents 5 to 11 were getting their water for a number of years. Apparently respondents 5 and 6 were not satisfied with this arrangement as according to them the water course was through a sandy field and they were not getting full use of water. They therefore applied to the executive Engineer asking for the sanction of a water course from stone No. 92/224 to 90/224. The Executive Engineer examined this matter and noticed that respondent No. 5 Sahi Ram had stated that if Nakewar wara bandi was sanctioned on the already sanctioned stone 92/228 he may not ask for the proposed water course. The Executive Engineer on this by his order D/23/ 1/74 therefore proposed that Nakewar wara bandi may be tried for one crop and thereafter he filed the case by his order D/- 27-5-74. Apparently the respondents 5 and 6 did not find satisfaction from the Nakewar wara Bandi and filed appeal before the Superintending Engineer who by his order dated 14-1-75 remitted the case back to the Executive Engineer as in his view the earlier order of 27-5-74 of the Executive Engineer was not final. The matter was thereafter examined by the Executive Engineer who took the view that Nakawar wara bandi was running smoothly add considering all the circumstances he did not think that the water course desired by respondent 5 from stone 92/224 to 90/224 was justified and rejected the application of respondent 5. Aggrieved against that respondent 5 filed an appeal before the Superintending Engineer respondent No. 3 who by his order dated 6-5-75 was of the view that some further investigation for redressing difficulties of the parties was necessary as according to him the sanction of the requested water course from 92/224 to 90/224 alone may not redress the general difficulty and he asked the Executive engineer respondent No. 4 to investigate the various proposals and then resubmit the case back to him. On the case being resubmitted to the superintending Engineer, it was noticed by him that the proposals suggested by him were not agreed fo by the cultivators who were having different views about it and there being no uniformity, it was difficult to get the proposals through without acquiring the land which it was not considered practicable. It was also noticed by him that on inspection he had found that Nakewar warabandi was not possible to be implemented. After considering the circumstances the Superintending Engineer by the impugned order dated 14-81975 allowed the appeal of respondents 5 and 6 and accorded sanction of water course from Stone No. 92/224 to 90/224. The petitioner is aggrieved and has come to this Court against the said order.

( 2 ) IT is apparent that the decision of the Superintending Engineer as to whether the sanctioning a new water couse will be for the benefit of respondents 5 and 6 is a matter which is within his jurisdicton under the Rajasthan Irrigation and drainage Act. (hereinafter to be called the act ). This court does not possess the specialists knowledge of the Irrigation Engineers so as to be able to say as to and in what particular manner or through which water course should the water be supplied to lands of various cultivators. Mr. Surolia counsel for the petitioner made a valient effort to persuade me to hold that it was in the larger interest of the petitioner as well as the respondents that the water should be supplied through the existing water course from stone No. 92/228 to 90/228 and the decision to supply through watercourse from stone No. 92/224 to 90/224 was not correct. Evidently this is a matter which the authorities who, are dealing with the disposal of water for irrigation purposes alone are competent to decide about it. Mr. Surolia then sought to raise an objection about jurisdiction and to the competency of the Superintending Engineer to hear and dispose of the appeal. I may note at