The District Collector lacks jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 24 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954, without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 20, 21, 22, and 23 of the Act. Additionally, the principles of natural justice require that affected parties be given an opportunity to be heard before an order is passed that may adversely affect their rights.

1. - The petitioners have filed this writ petition while claiming the following reliefs:-

"(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 15.6.99 passed by the District Collector (Annexure-7) may kindly be quashed and set-aside

(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be restrained from interfering from the present system of irrigation of the petitioners from the outlet of chak No.19 SDS-B.

(c) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed.

(d) Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs."

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners No.1 to 7 are holding agricultural land in Chak No.19 SDS whereas the petitioners No.8 to 11 are holding agricultural land in chak No.20 SDS as the petitioners were not getting proper irrigation water for their fields, due to water losses in the way of long distance of the water courses. They have filed an application before the Divisional Irrigation Officer (Executive Engineer) Irrigation Division-I, Hanumangarh for sanction of a new outlet on the stone line of 18. The Divisional Irrigation Officer, after receiving the said application, issued notices to all the affected persons and has also obtained technical report of the concerned Jiledar, Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer. The Divisional Irrigation Officer after hearing all the affected persons and after taking into consideration the technical reports and after inspecting the site, sanctioned the new outlet at the stone line of 18 vide order dated 19.12.1998.

3. Being aggrieved with the decision of Divisional Irrigation Officer dated 19.12.1998, Shri Badri Prasad, Ganesha Ram, Dalip Chand, Ram Pratap, Surendra, Ghanshyam, Hemand Ram, Sohan Lal, Surja Ram, Daleep Chand and Raghuveer preferred statutory appeal before the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Hanumangarh. The said appeal preferred by the above mentioned persons was dismissed by the Superintendent Engineer vide judgment dated 6.5.1999. The writ petition was preferred before this Court as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1979/1999 while challenging the orders dated 19.12.1998 and 6.5.1999 passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer, Division-I, Hanumangarh and Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Hanumangarh respectively. This Court after hearing the contesting parties has dismissed the above-mentioned writ petition at the admission stage. The certified copy of judgment dated 8.6.1999 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1979/1999 is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure 6. After passing of the judgment dated 8.6.1999, the private respondents No.4 to 6 have filed an application before the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar. The application preferred by the respondents No.4 to 6 was accepted by the District Collector on 15.6.1999 and the District Collector has ordered that the Divisional Irrigation Officer, should proceed with the construction of water course in pursuance of the order dated 19.12.1998 only after acquiring the land required for construction of water courses.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.6.1999 (Annex.7) passed by the District Collector, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Ramandeep Singh has argued that the order dated 15.6.1999 passed by the Collector is perse illegal as the same has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, who are affected parties, as the Divisional Irrigation Officer has passed the order dated 19.12.1998 on the application and any interference in the said order without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, is perse illegal and cannot be sustained. It is also argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the District Collector Sri Ganganagar has no jurisdiction to entertain any application preferred on behalf of responden