JUDGMENT 1. - The facts of this writ petition are that in District Sri Ganganagar, village Saluwal (Chak 3F) the petitioner owns agricultural land measuring 231/2 bighas in square No. 35. It is irrigated by Chak 4F outlet right from the time canal irrigation was introduced. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 owned 3 Bighas of land in the same village in square No 44/146 and 48/146, which is irrigated from chak 2F outlet front the aforesaid times. The respondents purchased 1 Bigha of land in Chak 4F and then applied for transferring 16 Bigha of their lands from chak 2F outlet, to Chak 4F outlet before the Executive Irrigation Officer, Bikaner, Irrigation Circle, Sri Ganganagar, who issued a public notice to the cultivators of Chak 2F and 4F fixing 2-6-75 as the date of filing objections. The notice was served on 23-5-75. The petitioner raised objections and the Executive Irrigation Officer recorded the statements of the villagers and that of the petitioner. The Executive Irrigation Officer, recorded the transfer applied for. The Superintending Irrigation Officer went to the village and inspected the site. The petitioner also made or oral objection before him. The Superintending Irrigation Officer then, appears to have passed the impugned order dated 144-75 approving the scheme recommended by the Executive Irrigation Officer, in the interest of irrigation and consolidation of holdings He also directed that cost for amendment of outlet and pucca naka shall be borne by the applicant. It appears that the outlet chak 4F was widened from "0.71" to 0.72' since then. 2. The order dated 14.8.75 is now challenged in this writ-petition on the ground that the petitioner will receive less water because of the inclusion of the land of the respondent under the same outlet. The total time for irrigation will also be proportionately reduced and the petitioner will suffer a loss of about 21/2 minutes per week in total. There is no provision in the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954, providing for the transfer of land from one outlet to the other. If such an order is covered by Section 20 of the Act, then such an order could be made only by the Divisional Irrigation Officer against which an appeal lay to the Superintending Irrigation Officer under rule 55 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1957. If such an order is covered by Section 20 of the Act, then such an order could be made only by the Divisional Irrigation Officer against which an appeal lay to the Superintending Irrigation Officer under rule 55 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1957. The Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainages Rules, 1957, as amended in 1973 provides for the manner in which an established system of canal distribution can materially be changed. Under that rule too, the Divisional Irrigation Officer can alone can pass such orders against which an appeal is provided to the Superintending Irrigation Officer. The Divisional Irrigation Officer is also required to issue a notice of 15 days with brief reasons and give adequate publicity though Panchayat of the area calling for objections and then make the order. Besides the Superintending Irrigation Officer before making his order gave no notice to the petitioner or persons affected. It is alleged that the transfer of the land from one outlet to the other was made at the instance and manipulation of the father-in law of the respondent No. 4, who is an employee of the Irrigation Department. The reasons that it was bring done in the interest of irrigation and consolidation of holdings are incorrect in as much as no consolidation has taken place because 47 Bighas still remained to be served by Chak 2 Foutlet. The order of the Superintending Engineer was malafide in as much as without mentioning the objections of the petitioner, he dismissed them as frivolous. 3. It is also urged that the order of the Divisional Irrigation Officer is appealable to the Superintending Irrigation Officer. The impugned order of the Superintending Irrigation Officer having not been passed in appeal is without jurisdiction on that account as well. The order was arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that is the State and the Irrigation Officers have, in reply, stated that the father-in-law of respondent Brijlal was no doubt serving in the Rajasthan Canal Project Organisation of the Irrigation Department but he had nothing to do with the present case. 4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that is the State and the Irrigation Officers have, in reply, stated that the father-in-law of respondent Brijlal was no doubt serving in the Rajasthan Canal Project Organisation of the Irrigation Department but he had nothing to do with the present case. The respondents had submitted an application in January 75, to the Superintending Engineer and not to the Executive Engineer in furtherance of which the Executive Engineer Ganga Canal did issue a notice according to Rule 4 sub-rule (2) of the aforesaid Rules on 1-5-75 to all the share-holders of chak 2F and 4F. It was served on 18 residents and a copy was also pasted in the village. Copies of the notices were also sent to the Pradhan Panchayat Samiti and to the Sarpanch of the village concerned as required by the amended rule 11 (3). It was only after the objections have been considered that the order in question was passed. It was further stated that the width of the oulet in chak No. 4 F was 0.71. The total area served by chak 4 F outlet was 794 acres. The discharge of the outlet was 2 .13 cusecs. The respondent's 11 acres were more added to chak No. 4F, thus, increasing the area to 805 acres. Consequently upon the increase in the area, the width of the outlet was increased from 0.71 to 0.72 thereby increasing the discharge of water from 2.13 cusecs to 2.16 cusecs. In view of the widening of the outlet, no loss would be suffered by the petitioner. The officers also stated that the matter was governed by section 20 of the Act and an inquiry was made in accordance with rule 4. Rule 11 had no application because it applies only when there was a material change in the established system of canal distribution. Changing of outlet does not lead to any change in the established system. The procedure prescribed in section 20 of the Act was followed. The order of the Executive Engineer was confirmed by the Superintending Engineer. It was also pleader that the petitioner had an alternative remedy way of reference to the Collector under section 53 and by way of a suit under section 52 of the Act, which was riot availed of before filing the writ petition. 5. Mr. Arora B.R. has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. It was also pleader that the petitioner had an alternative remedy way of reference to the Collector under section 53 and by way of a suit under section 52 of the Act, which was riot availed of before filing the writ petition. 5. Mr. Arora B.R. has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. The arguments of Mr. Arora and those the Dy. Govt. Advocate were heard. 6. The contention of Mr. Arora is that what the impugned order has done is to make a material change in the established system of canal distribution which can be done only by the Divisional Irrigation Officer under Rule 11. The Superintending Engineer can only hear an appeal against such change. Until an appeal is preferred, he gets no jurisdiction to pass an order making a change in the system. By himself making an order directing a change, he has deprived the petitioner of a right to file an appeal before him. He relies upon two decisions of this Court, namely; (i) Birjaram v. Chief Engineer, Irrigation, S.B Civil Writ Case No. 532 of 1968 decided on 6-10-70 and (2) Chimaa Chand Bhandari v. State, S.B.C Writ No. 2081/70 decided on 4-12-70 . These decisions put port to hold that in the system of canal distribution means nothing but the distribution of water from the canal through the outlets to the cultivators who irrigate their fields by the discharge of such water from the canal". Mr. Arora, therefore, maintained that a change of outlet was a change in the established system of canal distribution and is squarely covered by the provisions of the aforesaid rule 11. 7. The learned Deputy Govt. Advocate submitted that the case is governed by section 20 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954, and the rules made thereunder. It is not a case of change in the established system of canal distribution. A similar question arose in Sohansingh and Ors. v. The Superintending Engineer, Canal & Ors., ILR (1967) 1 P & H 406 , in which interpretation of section 20 of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 came for consideration. The provisions of that section are part materia with the provisions of section 20 of the Rajasthan Act. A similar question arose in Sohansingh and Ors. v. The Superintending Engineer, Canal & Ors., ILR (1967) 1 P & H 406 , in which interpretation of section 20 of the Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873 came for consideration. The provisions of that section are part materia with the provisions of section 20 of the Rajasthan Act. The Punjab High Court held that action under section 20 of the Act can correctly be taken for the transfer of an area of a landholder from an existing outlet to another outlet. 8. Upon a consideration of the matter, it appears to me that the case is covered by section 20 and not rule 11. There is no doubt that the established system of canal distribution will certainly include establishment of outlets which form part of the system of canal irrigation, but two things require to be considered. Firstly, the provisions of rule 11 cannot prevail over the provisions of the Act. Rule 11 was made to give effect to the provisions of section 31 as its marginal note makes it clear. Secondly. the case with which we are concerned is not a case of changing or altering the distribution system. It is a case of allowing extra land to be irrigated from an existing outlet and such a situation is contemplated and provided for by section 20 of the Act. Procedure for taking action under section 20 is for the most part contained in the section itself and whatever was needed more is provided in rule 4. Here, the grievance of the petitioner is that the notice of hearing given was of days less than the minimum of 14 days prescribed in section 20, not, was it served upon all the co-sharers of the water course. A further complaint is that the reasons given for the transfer of lands are incorrect and fall outside the scope of the Act, besides being mala fide. 9. As far as the charge of malafide is concerned, the learned counsel was not able to prove the same. Simply because, some relation of the respondent is an employee of the Department, no presumption of malafides could be drawn. Out of the two reasons given for transfer of land, one is interest of irrigation and another is consolidation of holdings. Though the second reason is off the mark, the first one can sustain the order. Simply because, some relation of the respondent is an employee of the Department, no presumption of malafides could be drawn. Out of the two reasons given for transfer of land, one is interest of irrigation and another is consolidation of holdings. Though the second reason is off the mark, the first one can sustain the order. As regards the shortage in the notice period there has been an infraction of the law but then as per the amended Art 226, the petitioner has to show whether he has suffered any injury of substantial nature or whether there has been a substantial failure of justice for the redress of which there is no other remedy provided for by or under any other law for the time being in force. It is obvious, that the petitioner or the other co-sharers are not going to suffer any substantial injury as outlet has been widened and since the persons concerned have been heard, there has been no substantial failure of justice I, therefore, do not consider it a fit case in winch this Court should interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 10. The petition is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ dismissed. *******