Honble JAIN, J. – By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to quash the impugned orders Anx. 1 dt. 19.6.1993 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Sri Vijaynagar and Anx. 2 dt. 23.11.1993 passed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Hanumangarh.

(2). Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioners are that the respondent no. 5 Mahavir Prasad and some other persons got allotted uncommand land in Chak 26-A of Tehsil Anupgarh and made a demand from Executive Engineer for water supply for irrigation purpose who referred the matter to the Superintending Engineer. Vide order dt. 19.6.1993 (Anx.1), the Superintending Engineer ordered to create a new Chak 6 MSR-A. Thereafter an appeal was filed before the Chief Engineer who vide order dt. 23.11.1993 transferred the whole of the area of Chak 26A to MSR Minor. Being dis-satisfied with the orders Anx. 1 and 2, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

(3). This Court while admitting the writ petition on 16.12.1993 stayed the operation of the orders Anx. 1 dt. 19.6.93 and Annex. 2 dt. 23.11.93, for 3 weeks while fixing responsibility on the petitioners to get the notices served.

(4). In pursuance to the notice, respondents No.1 to 4 filed reply stating that the new Chak 6MSR/A was proposed considering all aspects and inte- rest of the petitioner is not affected. It has been stated that the cultivators demanded fresh outlet for irrigation under sec. 16 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955.

(5). Respondent No.5 has also filed reply stating that on the application moved by him alongwith other cultivators, the Divisional Irrigation Officer gave notice to all the affected persons and after recording their statements proposed new outlet of Chak No.6MSR/A. The Divisional Irrigation Officer made his recommendation under Sec. 16 of the Act which was accepted by the Superintending Engineer vide order dt. 19.6.93 (Annex.1). It has also been stated that the water turn of the petitioners is not shortened nor the size of Chak No 5-6 MSR has been reduced.

(6). Learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly contended that the mandatory provisions contained in Sec.20 of the Act were not complied with before passing the impugned order. He has relied on Jaimal Ram VS. State (1).

(7). On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that this writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioners are not co-sharers and having their land in separate Chak. It has been submitted that the petitioners have concealed material facts as earlier a civil suit was filed by them which was ultimately withdrawn and thereafter this writ Peti- tion has been filed which deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. It has also been submitted that the application was made by the cultivator for supply of water for irrigation after creating a new outlet which falls within Section 16 of the Act and not under Section 20 of the Act which applies in the cases where supply of water is ordered to be made from the existing water course. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on Jarnel Singh & Anr. VS. State of Raj. (2) and J.S. Rawat VS. National Air Port Authority & Ors. (3).

(8). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record so also the relevant rules and the case law cited at Bar.

(9). Admittedly, the cultivators of Chak No. 26-A made an application to the Divisional Irrigation Officer for supply of water to their 25 Murrabas of uncommand land after creating a new outlet, who called a report from the Asstt. Engineer and after hearing all concerned recommended the case of the applicants to the Superintending Engineer for his technical assent as provided under Section 16 of the Act vide letter dt. 11.6.1993 which was accepted by the Superintending Engineer vide Anx. 1 dt. 19.6.1993. The Superintending Engineer while accepting the recommendation, ordered to create the new Chak 6MSR-A Thereafter the Chie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document