JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed by the three petitioners namely; Bachansingh, Ratansingh and Balwant Singh each of them were allotted 10 bighas land in chak No. 13-H. There is no dispute that the allotment of land was made by the competent officer to the petitioners. There is also no dispute that petitioners were allotted the land in dispute as irrigated land after converting the same for Gair Mumkin to Mumkin before allotment was made in favour of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners only grievances is that notwithstanding the fact that land was allotted to them as irrigated land by charging the price as was required to be paid for irrigated land, they are not being supplied with the water for irrigation from the water course which is passing through their lands in the Ganganal Canal Area. 3. In the first instance, all the petitioners had filed a civil suit in the Court of Munsif, Sriganganagar. On an application moved under order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC, the Munsif had passed an interim order for supply of water in favour of the petitioners. Against that order state went in appeal before the Additional District Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar who allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of Learned Munsiff, Sriganganagar on the ground that in view of Section 52 of the Raj. Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954, civil suit is not maintainable. Against the said order, three (3) revision petitions were filed by the petitioners before this Court. This court in its order dated 9th Sept. 1988 upheld the order of the Learned Additional District Judge, Sriganganagar. However loooking to facts of the case this court directed the petitioners to apply under section 20 of the Act before the concerned authority for supply of water within 10 days. Irrigation authorities were directed to pass proper order on that application within a period of 2 months. During the pendency of application, this court passed orders for interim arrangement. While recording the facts of the case the court recorded as under : "The facts of the case are that petitioner was allotted a land in 13-H Murba No. 22 Kila No. 1 total 10 Bighas. This land was Nahri. The possession of land was given to him. This land has been recorded as a Nahri in all the correspondence. While recording the facts of the case the court recorded as under : "The facts of the case are that petitioner was allotted a land in 13-H Murba No. 22 Kila No. 1 total 10 Bighas. This land was Nahri. The possession of land was given to him. This land has been recorded as a Nahri in all the correspondence. The land was put in a proper cultivable condition but the irrigation facility was not given." While upholding the plea of ouster jurisdiction of Civil Court the court observed as under : "I have heard both the learned counsel at length and I think the view taken by the appellate court regarding jurisdiction of Civil Court is concerned, that view does not appear to be erroneous. However; looking to the balance of convenience and the harsh effect which is going to bring about on the petitioner who have laboured for putting his land in a proper condition, I deem it just and proper to direct that the petitioner may afresh apply under section 20 of the Act before the concerned authority for supply of water within 10 days and irrigation authorities shall pass order as far as possible within a period of two months from today, after hearing parties in accordance with law." 4. Persuant to aforesaid direction the petitioners applied under section 20 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 for supply of the water to the lands allotted to them from the Water course passing through their land. Their application was rejected by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation vide order dated 24.11.1988 Ex. No. 8. The said order Ex. No. 8 is .subject matter of challenge of this writ petition. Close reading of the impugned order leads one to believe that it is founded on the premise that land in question is not an irrigated land. The basis of its premise as appear from the order is that while the land has been alloted by the Revenue Department of the Government, it has not been recorded as irrigated land with the Irrigation Department of the State Government, and, according to the order unless the area is recorded as irrigated land under the Canal Command Area by the Irrigation Department, the petitioners are not entitled to any water from the Ganganal Canal Scheme. As a consequence of this foundation the Executive Engineer has also went as (sic) to hold that in circumstances from applicant ought to have moved application Section 16 of the Act or not under section 20 for the purpose of securing the supply of water from the concerned Irrigation work. 5. Separate replies work submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 and 4. The order passed by the Executive Engineer has been supported on all accounts. 6. Having carefully considered the pleadings of the parties and arguments raised before me and going through the material that has been placed before me, I am of the opinion that respondents are estopped from raising the plea that the land in question is not an irrigated land. It is a case in which land has been allotted to the petitioners by a competent officer as irrigated land by charging the price fixed for irrigated land. The land is allotted to the petitioners by the concerned officer of the State as representing the state and ordinarily all the department of the state are bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment. The officers of another deptt. of the state have no authority to challenge the correctness of the order of the spacious ground of nonfulfilment of formalities which were required to be carried out by one or other department of the state in that regard. If lands have been offered to the petitioners as irrigated land, it has to be presumed that all formalities of converting the land from non-irrigated to irrigated have been complied with before the land was allotted to the petitioners as irrigated land at the department level itself. It cannot be given to one department to challenge the action of any other department which may result in destroying to the right which have been vested in third party as a result of state action. It is not a case where the allottees of land after obtaining the land as unirrigated land, have secured its conversion. It is a case where Parsmal owner of the land itself has transferred its right as in favour of subject as irrigated land and no officer of the state can he permitted to resile from that position in the absence of any allegation of fraud or mis-representation on the part of allottees. 7. It is a case where Parsmal owner of the land itself has transferred its right as in favour of subject as irrigated land and no officer of the state can he permitted to resile from that position in the absence of any allegation of fraud or mis-representation on the part of allottees. 7. Neither in the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the Respondent No. I and 2 nor in the Additional Affidavit submitted under the direction of the court anything has been brought about on record from which it can be said that apart from the fact that the land has not been recorded as irrigated land by the irrigation department, it does not bear the character of the irrigated land. 8. In the face of the factual position recorded by this Court in its Judgment dated 9th Sept. 88 to which state was a party and the orders of the State Government alloting the land, the assumption of the Executive Engineer that there is no evidence on the basis of which this land can be treated as irrigated land is patently erroneous. The burden was not on the petitioners to show that the land was the irrigated land.It was for the respondents, to have shown, that the land was not irrigated and could not have been converted into the irrigated land before transferring it to the petitioners. Executive Engineer has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in presuming the land to be unirrigated. This. alone is sufficient to vitiate the order Ex. N. 8. 9. That is to be taken that the land in question is irrigated land and was transferred to the petitioners as such than it cannot be further disputed that the irrigation department was under an obligation to supply water for irrigation of the land when applied for. How much and in what manner, the water is to be supplied is to be decided by the competent officer of Irrigation Department in accordance with the provision of the Act, 1954, by taking into consideration, the total availability of the water supply, the total area sought to be irrigated from the concerned irrigation work and other relevant factors for the purpose of fixing the quantity time and place of water supply. 10. 10. It may also be noticed that the petitioners had moved an application under Section 20 of the Irrigation Drainage Act, 1955 at the direction of this Court and the respondents were directed to decide that application in appropriate manner. In that view of the fact that petitioner moved an application under section 20 of the Act cannot militate against maintainability of application. Without going into question whether Section 16 will be applicable in the present case or section 20 will be applicable in the present case, the officer was not justified to throw out the application on the tactical grounds about the label of section under which application was moved. Even according to him Section 16 was applicable and petitioner could have moved an application for supply of water under section 16. If so, he ought to have treated the application for supply of water under section 16 and dealt with it by adopting the procedure required to be followed in the case of section 16. But in no case was justified to refuse to decide the application for supply of water on that ground and defeat it merely for the reason that it was applied under different provision of the Act. 11. In view of the aforesaid petition succeed. The order Ex. No. 8 is quashed and the respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the case of the petitioner for supply of water afresh on merits, keeping in view above observations. The interim arrangement made by this Court vide order dated 9th Sept. 88 quoted above shall continue to remain in force until proper order of water supply are made by Competent Authority.Writ Petition Disposed of as per above directions. *******