Honble SHETHNA, J.–Relying upon the judgment of this court in the case of Inder Raj vs. Executive Engineer (1) which was later on relied upon in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1087/90 decided on 2.7.99 by the learned Single Judge of this court, Mr. Sharma learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders at Annexs.1 and 2 passed by the authorities are bad in law and illegal. He submits that the final order under the provisions of the Act has to be passed by the Collector and the Rule also provides that the papers are to be transmitted to the Collector for passing such order. The same has not been done in this case, therefore, the impugned orders at Annexs.1 and 2 required to be set aside. (2). As against this , learned counsel Mr. Sidhu for the private contesting res- pondents relying upon the judgment of this court in the case of Rajendra Manda vs. The State of Rajasthan (2) submits that though the petitioners were served with a notice dated 26.5.98 regarding the regularisation of the water course, the petitioners filed their objections only before the Executive Engineer and not before the Collector. Mr. Sidhu further submits that the judgment of this court in Inder Rajs case and subsequent judgment in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1081/90 of the learned Single Judge have no application on the facts of this case because the instant case is arising out of an application for regularisation of the water course which was already in existence whereas in Inder Rajs case and in writ petition no. 1081/90, the question was regarding the construction of new water course. (3). I fully agree with Mr. Sidhu. This is not a case of new water course, therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel Mr. Sharma will have no application on the facts of this case. (4). I have gone through the impugned decisions at Annexs.1 and 2 passed by the Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer. While passing the impugned orders, they have not committed any error much less an error either of law or facts which is required to be corrected by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. (5). I have gone through the impugned decisions at Annexs.1 and 2 passed by the Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer. While passing the impugned orders, they have not committed any error much less an error either of law or facts which is required to be corrected by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. (5). Before parting, I must state that the decisions of the Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer are the decisions of the irrigation experts who are the best Judges of their own fields and cannot be disturbed by this court in its writ jurisdiction. This court cannot sit in appeal over such decisions and take contrary view in the matter. (6). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed. Stay, if any , granted earlier stands vacated forth with.