Sandeep Mehta, J.

Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Labh Singh and others, being agriculturists of tehsil Sangaria getting irrigation facility for their fields from the Karni Singh Distributory (hereinafter referred to as 'KSD'), have approached this court with the following prayers :-

(1) to assail the exercise of modernization of KSD being undertaken by the respondents by following the capacity statements Annex.P/3 dated 28.07.2017 issued by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department and the capacity statement Annex.P/4 dated 08.06.2018 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department;

(2) to direct the respondents to constitute a committee to prepare a fresh capacity statement of the KSD before modernizing the same; and

(3) to direct the respondents to demolish the construction made upto 9 KSD on basis of the impugned capacity statement dated 28.07.2017 and 08.06.2018 and to restructure the same after procuring the fresh capacity statement prepared by the competent committee/authority.

2. Mr. H.S. Sidhu, learned counsel representing the petitioners, vehemently and fervently urged that as per Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, power to alter, in any manner the existing irrigation system vests exclusively in the State Government. He also relied upon the Rajasthan Farmers Participation in Management of Irrigation System Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2000') and urged that as per the provisions of this statute, only the competent authority as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act is authorized to recommend changes in the existing irrigation system. In support of his contentions, Mr. Sidhu relied upon the Division Bench judgment in the case of Jarnel Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1992) 1 RajLW 362 and urged that any action of opening, closing, raising and shifting of outlets or change in alignment of the irrigation system is to be strictly undertaken by adhering to the provisions of the Act and that such changes can not be introduced save with an explicit order of the State Government as per Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955. He urged that the capacity statements prepared by the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer cannot be made the basis of bringing around changes in the existing irrigation system because such action runs contrary to the mandatory requirements of the Act and the Rules. He further urged that the total available quantity of water is bound to be reduced significantly because of the faulty design prepared by the respondents for restructuring and fresh lining of the canal. He further urged that construction which has been made so far is contrary to the requirement of law and should ordered to be demolished and the earlier position restored. As per him, it is a fit case, wherein this court should restrain the respondents from proceeding further with the construction/relaying of the canal and to direct them to get prepared fresh capacity statement from the competent authority in terms of Rules of 1955 and to permit the work in question to be proceeded only after taking due permission from the State Government in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1955.

3. Per contra, Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, learned AGC, representing the respondents, has filed file a detailed reply to the writ petition taking a stand inter alia that the entire exercise of fresh lining of the KSD is a part of modernization/renovation/repair process, which has become inevitable and unavoidable with efflux of time. The water channels as it exist today are unlined and exposed at numerous places and heavy silting at various places has caused blockages leading to inefficacy of the irrigation system. The existing canal is 60 years old and thus, the necessary modernizatio