The main legal point established in the judgment is that the orders passed by the Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer were not sustainable as they violated the provisions of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The case comes up on an application for preponement of the date. However, with the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally and decided today itself.

3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 13.11.2010 passed by the Executive Engineer, Sri Ganganagar as well as the order dated 28.06.2011 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Sri Ganganagar.

4. The brief facts necessary to be narrated are that an order was passed by the Executive Engineer on 13.11.2010, whereby the application preferred by the respondent Puran Singh that water course has been running through Murabba Nos. 28 & 29 for last 60 years, therefore, the same should be sanctioned. At the same time, the petitioner Hans Raj also preferred an application wherein it was stated that since the sanctioned water course is not in Murabba Nos. 28-29, therefore, the same should be removed and water course should be constructed at the sanctioned place i.e. Murabba Nos. 17, 18, 25 & 26.

5. The Executive Engineer while disposing of two applications vide order dated 13.11.2010 held that for all practical purposes, the sanctioned water course in Murabba No. 17 & 26 cannot be constructed as the same is not feasible. It is further stated that since the water course is in operation for last 60 years in Murabba No. 28 & 29, therefore, the same should be allowed to continue for supply of water in this area.

6. Against this order of Executive Engineer, the petitioner Devidayal preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer and the same was also rejected by the appellate authority vide its order dated 28.06.2011 holding that since the sanctioned water course in Murabba Nos. 17 & 26 is not in operation because the same has now come in abadi area, therefore, it was not found feasible to sanction the same and operate the water channel from that sanctioned water course. It was further observed that since the water course in Murabba No. 28 & 29 is in operation for last 60 years, therefore, the same should be continued to supply the water in the area. In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed assailing validity of the order dated 13.11.2010 passed by the Executive Engineer as well as order dated 28.06.2011 passed by the Superintending Engineer.

7. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the procedure provided in the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 has not been followed. As per the Section 24/25 of the act, the objections for construction of water course are to be dealt with and decided by the District Collector. Since, the water course in Murabba No. 28 & 29 has not been sanctioned by the Collector, the same should be made in-operational and the sanctioned water course should be allowed to operate in the area for supply of the water. He further submits that the sanctioning Authority as per the act of 1954 is the collector, therefore, the order passed by the Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer dehors the law. He, therefore, prays that the order dated 13.11.2010 passed by the Executive Engineer as well as order dated 28.06.2011 passed by the Superintending Engineer may kindly be quashed and set aside.

8. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no dispute with respect to position of law, but in the present case, since the water course is in operation for last 60 years and it has not been found feasible for construction of water course for Murabba No. 17 & 26. The Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer have rightly rejected application of the petitioners for construction of water course in Murabba Nos. 17 & 26 and for closer of the water channel in Murabba Nos. 28 & 29. Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, submit that the writ petition should be dismissed on this ground.

9. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the