JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have filed these two writ petitions being aggrieved of the shifting of water course for supply of water to their fields and change In timings of water supply. Since the parties in both the writ petitions are same and the petitioners have approached this Court by joint petitions seeking redressal of their grievances and more so when the petitions are clubbed together, same are being disposed by this common order taking first S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5506/04. 2. The water supply to the petitioners' fields in Chak No. 3 KSP of Tehsil Tibbi was earlier from Water Course at Mile Stones No. 183/310 to 182/310, however, application (Annex. 1) was moved before the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Division II, Hanumangarh Junction in the year 2004 by respondent No. 4 Rameshwarlal for cancelling the old water course which was at Stone No. 183/310 to Stone No. 182/310 and for opening new water course from Stone 182/309 to 182/310. It was stated in the application that changing of water course would reduce the length of the channel meant for supply of water and this will not affect any co-sharers and further the new water course sought would be helpful to all for better irrigation facilities. The report, Annex. 3 of Junior Engineer was submitted before Executive Engineer after investigation, discloses that the new water course will be for the benefit of all and this will reduce the length of the water course and cancellation of old water course would be proper and will provide all concerned better irrigation facilities to their fields. A General Notice (Annex. 4) dated 23.03.2004 under Rule 4(2) of the Rajasthan Irrigation & Drainage Rules, 1955 was issued by respondent No. 3 Executive Engineer and was handed over to Junior Engineer, Tibbi for service, who after obtaining signatures of various persons at its back submitted the same before the Executive Engineer. The Executive Engineer passed orders on the presumption that since nobody had turned up after service of notice under Rule 4(2) of the Rules, therefore, allowed the application moved by respondent No. 4 for change of water course and changed the water course for supply of water vide order dated 20.05.2004 (Annex. 6) to Mile Stone 182/309 to 182/310 cancelling the earlier water course. 3. 6) to Mile Stone 182/309 to 182/310 cancelling the earlier water course. 3. It is alleged that as the petitioners did not receive any notice so they could not file any objection within time and, therefore, they filed appeal (Annex. 7) in July 2004 before the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle Hanumangarh, where mainly two objections were taken that they were not heard and infact the new water course would not be in the interest of petitioners as it will consume more time to reach the water to their field and time of getting water would reduce. The Superintending Engineer, respondent No. 2 after hearing both side, vide order dated 05.11.2004 confirmed the order passed by Executive Engineer Annex. 6 repelling the arguments for the reason that the land of the petitioners is at the tail end and further the other co-sharers have not objected to it and infact, the new water course by cancelling the old one would reduce the length. Further repelling another argument as regards reduction of time in obtaining water from the new water course, which may reduce water time for one and a half minute, it was concluded that as far as short of water time is concerned infact that would be negligible rather it would be helpful in providing better irrigation facilities. This order does not make a mention as to whether the petitioners were served notice under 4(2) of the Act. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that firstly no notice was served on them before passing of the order by the Executive Engineer and secondly on account of change of water course time for supply of water will reduce approximately 50 minutes because on account of opening of new water course, the filling time of water course in-the entire Chak would take more time and as time limit for irrigation purpose for each and every chak is fixed and there is no increase in the water supply, they would get less water, but before changing the water course they were not heard and the procedure prescribed under the Rules was not complied, which has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice and on account of change of water course the load of maintenance would also increase and the entire burden shall shift upon petitioners and others whose land lies in the tail of the Chak. 5. 5. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5506/2004 have challenged the change of water course while Writ Petition No. 487/2005 has been filed challenging the timings of water supply after having failed to get any relief in the appeals filed before respondent No. 2 the Superintending Engineer against the orders passed by the Executive Engineer. In the writ petition in hand concerning change of water course bearing No. 5506/04, stay order was passed by this Court on 09.12.2004 and it was directed that no change be made in irrigation facility in pursuance of the order of Executive Engineer dated 20.05.2004 and the appellate order dated 05.11.2004 was stayed. The said order was confirmed on 24.05.2005. No stay order has been granted in another writ petition No. 487/2005 challenging the change in time of water supply. 6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the instant case notice as required under Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 1955 was not served upon the petitioners, therefore, entire proceedings stand vitiated. It has been submitted that the water course could be changed as per Section 23 read with Rule 4(2) of the Rules but before changing water course it was essential to serve notice upon the petitioners as well. It has further been submitted that all proceedings in this matter has been taken at the back of the petitioners in collusion with respondent No. 4, therefore, in absence of adequate hearing to the petitioners at the initial stage to place their case, the entire proceedings vitiate and orders Annex. 6 & 8 respectively passed by Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer are required to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, it has been contended that Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 1955 provides that concerned persons should be afforded the opportunity and in the instant case, a general notice was issued and service was effected by pasting the notice at different places in the village. 8. I have considered the submissions made before me. 9. Section 23 of the Act of 1954 states that for changing the existing water course a person can apply before the concerned authority and Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 1955 prescribes that when proceedings takes place under Section 22, 23, & 23 of the Act when the officer concerned shall issue notice in Form No. 2 to all persons concerned. Thus, it appears from perusal of the provisions of the Act and Rules that when water course is shifted/changed, a notice is must. 10. Annex. 7 is the appeal filed by the petitioners before the Superintending Engineer against the order passed by Executive Engineer Annex. 6 wherein a specific ground has been taken that petitioners were not afforded opportunity of hearing as no notice was served on them under Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 1955. Annex. 8 is the order passed by respondent No. 2 the learned Superintending Engineer. The order Annex. 8, on perusal, reveals that there was specific argument on behalf of the petitioners that they were not served with notice under Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 1955. It appears that this argument has not been touched in the order Annex. 8 passed by Superintending Engineer and the order is silent on this aspect. Thus, it appears that as regards the principles of natural justice are concerned, in the present case, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is well founded that since petitioners and others were the beneficiaries of the earlier existing water course, which has been changed, it was essential for the respondent authorities before passing any order, petitioners ought to have been given notice in this regard to file objections, if any. In the absence of notice, as contemplated under Rule 4(2) of the Rules, I am of the opinion that the writ petition No. 5506/04 is required to be accepted. 11. Accordingly, while accepting Writ Petition No. 5506/04, the order Annex. 6 dated 20.05.2004 passed by respondent No. 3 Executive Engineer, whereby existing water course has been changed and the order Annex. 8 dated 05.11.2004 passed by respondent No. 2 the Superintending Engineer upholding the order of Executive Engineer Annex. 6, are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 3 Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Division II, Hanumangarh Junction to decide the matter afresh preferably within a period of 6 months after considering the objections, if any, submitted by the petitioners before him, for which the parties agree that now no fresh notice is required to be served under Rule 4(2) of the Rules. 12. In view of setting aside of orders Annex. 12. In view of setting aside of orders Annex. 6 & 8 of Writ Petition No. 5506/04 concerning change of water course, Writ Petition No. 487/2005 is also required to be accepted and same is accepted after setting aside the impugned orders Annex. 4 dated 03.06.2004 & Annex. 6 dated 05.11.2004 challenged in the writ petition. The parties shall be free to take their objections in relation to time etc. as and when need arises for the same. 13. The parties shall appear before the Executive Engineer on 1st of February, 2007. 14. During the period of pendency of the present matters before respondent No. 3, the status quo, as its exists today, shall be maintained. 15. The writ petition stand disposed of accordingly.Writ Petition Allowed. *******