Hon'ble TATIA, J.—By two separate judgments dated 14.5.2009, two bunch of the writ petitions have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. One bunch of ten writ petitions was decided along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4690/2008-Bagh Singh & Anr. vs. State Raj. & Ors. and by the separate judgment of the same date second bunch of 17 writ petitions have been decided by the learned Single Judge along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4689/2008 Sahi Ram & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. The controversy cropped up because of one action of the respondents, by which the irrigation facility availed by the petitioner from irrigation work of the State Government was withdrawn/cancelled. 2. The one set of the petitioners are those petitioners who are claiming that they have sanction order in their favour of installation of siphons and for taking water for irrigation to their agricultural field. These are the petitioners whose writ petitions have been dismissed in bunch of ten writ petitions along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4690/2008-Bagh Singh and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 3. The second set of petitioners who are petitioners in the writ petitions decided by the judgment delivered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4689/2008-Sahi Ram & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. and other 16 connected matters. The petitioners of these writ petitions though stated that 49 siphons were sanctioned for the agricultural lands. "However, the petitioners is/are unable to locate his/their sanction order in the said list." Meaning thereby, without admitting, the petitioners of this bunch of these writ petitions admitted that they do not have any order of sanction sanctioning the siphons irrigation to their agricultural lands. 4. Because of the distinction referred above, it appears that the learned Single Judge has decided the writ petitions by separate judgments. However, all these Special Appeals challenging the judgments delivered in all above writ petitions have been argued with same arguments with little difference, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. 5. 4. Because of the distinction referred above, it appears that the learned Single Judge has decided the writ petitions by separate judgments. However, all these Special Appeals challenging the judgments delivered in all above writ petitions have been argued with same arguments with little difference, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. 5. The contention of the writ petitioners in first set of the writ petitions is that the irrigation authorities duly sanctioned the installation of siphon and size of pipe for taking water from canal maintained by the State Government for the purpose of giving water for irrigation to the agricultural land of the petitioners and with the help of said sanction orders, the petitioners are getting the water for irrigation to their agricultural land since last more than 15 years. Then, in the year about 2007, abruptly, the respondents passed the order to stop this facility and directed to remove the siphons. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners preferred several writ petitions and some of which were decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 161/2006- Purna Ram & Anr. vs. The State of Raj. & Ors. vide judgment dated 27.2.2007. The stand of the writ petitioners was that they, after due sanction from the competent authority, installed the siphon system and started availing irrigation facility for their agriculture field and for that purpose, developed their land and even obtained the financial assistance from the banks and burdened themselves in anticipation that they will get good crops because now their land is irrigated land. Therefore, action of the respondents after 15 years, of stopping the petitioners' irrigation and removal of the siphons is wholly unwarranted as well as illegal. 6. The respondents, in the earlier round of litigation, admitted that though siphons were sanctioned but that was only a temporary sanction/ arrangement and was to continue till the land is otherwise provided irrigation facility. It was also specifically submitted that the number of siphons and size of pipes were also sanctioned but taking advantage of the fact of sanction of siphons, various farmers have commissioned more than the sanctioned number of siphons and have installed pipes of bigger size than the sanctioned size, which virtually amounts to committing theft of the water. It was also specifically submitted that the number of siphons and size of pipes were also sanctioned but taking advantage of the fact of sanction of siphons, various farmers have commissioned more than the sanctioned number of siphons and have installed pipes of bigger size than the sanctioned size, which virtually amounts to committing theft of the water. In view of the above reasons, the contention of the respondents was that the temporary sanction could have been stopped by the competent authority and there exists reasons for stoppage of water supply. 7. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the above S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 161/2006 and connected matters in the judgment dated 22.2.2007, after considering the totality of the facts of the case, disposed of the writ petiti-ons and directed all the petitioners to appear before the concerned Executive Engineer and satisfy individually about the size of the pipe and number of siphons sanctioned. It was further directed that after satisfaction of the Executive Engineer, the concerned cultivator shall be provided the irrigation facility to the extent, originally sanctioned, till the otherwise irrigation facility is provided by the respondents. It was made clear by the same judgment that in case, the Executive Engineer finds that in view of the subsequent events, like providing of otherwise irrigation facility by the canal, the subsistence of siphon is not required, in that event, the siphon will not be sanctioned. It was also directed that all the petitioners should appear before the Executive Engineer on 19.3.207 and the Executive Engineer was directed to decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of 10 days thereafter. As an interim measure, it was further directed that in case during this interregnum period any cultivator has a turn of irrigation then in that event, three days before that date, the concerned cultivator shall approach the Executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer will decide his request immediately on above lines. With above directions, all the writ petitions were disposed of. 8. In consequence of the judgment of this Court dated 27.2.2007 delivered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 161/2006, the concerned Executive Engineer passed the order on 28.3.2007. The order dated 28.3.2007 is a detailed order. With above directions, all the writ petitions were disposed of. 8. In consequence of the judgment of this Court dated 27.2.2007 delivered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 161/2006, the concerned Executive Engineer passed the order on 28.3.2007. The order dated 28.3.2007 is a detailed order. The concerned Executive Engineer, allowed to the cultivators who had sanction order for siphon system to continue the irrigation facility and denied the irrigation facility through illegally installed siphons which were installed without there being any sanction order. The Executive Engineer found that some of the cultivators increased the number of siphons and/or pipe size. The Executive Engineer ordered that the cultivators shall not be entitled to excess water either by more siphons than sanctioned number of siphons or because of bigger size of pipe than sanctioned size of pipe. 9. Not satisfied with the order of the Executive Engineer dated 28.3.2007, writ petitions were filed before this Court and one of which is S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4698/2007 - Mst. Jetto vs. State of Raj. & Ors. The main argument of the cultivators-petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4698/2007 and other petitions was that inspite of the direction of this Court given in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 161/2006 and connected writ petitions, the opportunity of hearing was not given to each individual cultivator by the Executive Engineer. That plea prevailed and the order passed by the Executive Engineer dated 28.3.2007 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the concerned Executive Engineer with the following directions:- "(i) to prove opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; (ii) to consider all the grounds raised by the petitioners during personal hearing; (iii) to decide the case of the petitioner individually by a speaking order. (iv) To consider whether any sanction for installation of siphon is accorded by the department, if not, then to take action in accordance with law so that no person shall be allowed to commit theft of using water for irrigation purpose. (v) To pass appropriate orders for providing alternative irrigation facility in the event of removing the siphon system after charging cost as per rules from the agriculturists. (vi) Not to pass harsh/extreme penalty order in the event of reaching to the conclusion that agriculturists have committed theft by installing siphon system without sanction from the department but order may be passed for removing the siphon system. (vi) Not to pass harsh/extreme penalty order in the event of reaching to the conclusion that agriculturists have committed theft by installing siphon system without sanction from the department but order may be passed for removing the siphon system. (vii) To pass appropriate order for the area to provide water supply for irrigation as per availability of water without any discrimination with the farmers in accordance with law. (viii) To comply with the directions of this Court passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 161/2006 along with 14 writ petitions on 27.2.2007 in its true spirit." 10. In view of the directions given in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4698/2007 dated 3.3.2008, the Executive Engineer again heard the matters of the cultivators and passed the orders, and details of individual's decision is not relevant, as per all decisions, the result is the one and same. The Executive Engineer held that the cultivators are entitled to irrigation facility through siphon as per the sanction order, i.e., as per the number of siphons sanctioned and as per the size of the pipe sanctioned and not in excess of number of siphons and in excess of sanctioned size of pipe. While deciding the matters, the Executing Engineer was also of the view that the persons who are not Khatedar tenants and are Ghair Khatedar tenants, are not entitled to irrigation facility and, therefore, their irrigation facility is liable to be stopped. 11. The orders of the Executive Engineer referred in preceding para have been challenged by the petitioners by filing separate writ petitions which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge by common order dated 14.5.2007 which is impugned in these appeals. 12. The learned Single Judge observed that the water supply through siphons is not under the provisions of Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act and Rules but it was only when extra water was available at the relevant time, this facility was made available to the agriculturists. Then it has been observed that since, now there is scarcity of the water and therefore, no additional siphon can be sanctioned in favour of the petitioners. However, whatever siphons have been sanctioned in favour of the petitioners, are not being disturbed by the respondents (as stated by the respondents in reply to the writ petitions). Then it has been observed that since, now there is scarcity of the water and therefore, no additional siphon can be sanctioned in favour of the petitioners. However, whatever siphons have been sanctioned in favour of the petitioners, are not being disturbed by the respondents (as stated by the respondents in reply to the writ petitions). Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for sanction of additional siphon and since supply of the water through the number of siphons and size sanctioned is maintained, therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the order of the Executive Engineer passed in individual's case. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that this Court in earlier round of litigation, vide judgment dated 27.2.2007, recognized the appellants' right to get the water supply through siphon system and clearly held that till the otherwise irrigation facility is provided by the respondents, the respondents shall provide the irrigation facility to the cultivators to the extent originally sanctioned. Therefore, the appellants right to avail irrigation facility through siphons now cannot be disputed. It is submitted that the Executive Engineer committed grave error by not considering the sanction order of some of the cultivators by which they have allowed irrigation by siphon system and in support of that, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the list annexed with the sanction order dated 4.5.1993 (Annex. 4). It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Executive Engineer also committed error of law when he held that Ghair Khatedar tenants cannot get irrigation facility. It is submitted that Ghair Khatedar tenant is also a person lawfully in possession of agricultural land and it is with the permission of the landholder the State Government, which itself entitles the Ghair Khatedar tenant to cultivate the land and take water under any scheme of water supply. The Ghair Khatedar tenant of the agricultural land cannot be denied irrigation facility merely on the ground that he is Ghair Khatedar tenant and is not Khatedar tenant. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that now the cultivators are getting the irrigation facility since last 20 or more than 20 years and at this stage, if their water supply will be discontinued then their entire agricultural land will became waste land. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that now the cultivators are getting the irrigation facility since last 20 or more than 20 years and at this stage, if their water supply will be discontinued then their entire agricultural land will became waste land. It is submitted that in last 20 years, the cultivators have incurred huge expenditure to develop the land and then it will be highly unjust to deny the water facility and particularly when their land is falling just near the canal. It is also submitted that by their cultivation from canal water, their land became command land and if it has not been yet declared command then it deserves to be declared command but whether it is command or not command, the water supply cannot be stopped. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the writ petitions were given full opportunity of hearing by the Executive Engineer and then individual's case was examined and thereafter the Executive Engineer reached to the conclusion that the cultivators who are having sanctioned siphon system with them, are entitled to water supply to the extent which he can get from sanctioned number of siphons by sanctioned size of pipe and not more than that. Those persons who have no sanction order of siphon system have been denied any irrigation facility. If the cultivators in the garb of sanction order of siphon, installed more siphons than the sanction number of siphons or increased the size of the pipe to get more water from the siphon system, then they are not entitled to excess water by the above means and no right can be claimed by the petitioners on the basis of their illegal act which runs contrary to the sanction order. It is submitted that neither in the writ jurisdiction nor in the appellate jurisdiction after writ jurisdiction, this Court would like to re-appreciate the evidence so as to interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the competent authority after due appreciation of evidence about the number of siphons and the size of pipe sanctioned to cultivators by the competent authority. 15. 15. The contention of second set of the writ petitioners is that they are availing the irrigation facility through siphons and they submitted that they have order of sanction of siphons but, admittedly, they could not substantiate this submission by any evidence and, therefore, in alternate, submitted that since last 20 years they are using irrigation facility, therefore, their irrigation facility cannot now be stopped for the reasons mentioned in the writ petition. 16. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 17. Though twice this Court entertained the writ petitions of the culti-vators but did not choose to decide any disputed question of fact and rightly sent matters to the concerned Executive Engineer who is Divisional Irrigation Officer and competent to decide the dispute, therefore, it will be appropriate to first look into the provisions of the Act of 1954 and the Rules of 1955. 18. The water supply to the agricultural field through any source of water is regulated by the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder which is the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1955. The complete procedure has been prescribed under the Act of 1954 and the Rules of 1955, how the cultivator can drawn water from any "Irrigation Work" maintained by the State Government, or filling or vesting in the State Government for which irrigation work has been undertaken as given under various sub-clauses under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1954. As per sub-clause (v) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1954, an "outlet" is an opening constructed in a canal through which water passes into a water course or directly to any land. The siphon as such is not defined in the Act of 1954 nor in the Rules of 1955 but is a mode of taking water from irrigation work/canal/channel or reservoir. For getting any water for irrigation, one is required to apply before the competent authority who may pass appropriate order of sanction of water. As per sub-clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1954, "Irrigation Officer" is the officer who has right to exercise control and has jurisdiction over an irrigation or drainage work or works. As per sub-clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1954, "Irrigation Officer" is the officer who has right to exercise control and has jurisdiction over an irrigation or drainage work or works. The Superintending Irrigation Officer is an officer appointed under the Act of 1954 to exercise control over irrigation and drainage work in a circle constituted under Section 4 and the Divisional Irrigation officer is an officer appointed under the Act of 1954 to exercise control over all irrigation and drainage works in a sub-division constituted under Section 4. 19. By Section 52 of the Act of 1954, it has been expressly provided that except wherein otherwise provided all claims against the State Government in respect of anything done under this Act may be tried by the Civil Courts, but no such court shall in any case pass an order as to the supply of water to any crop sown or growing at the time of such order. Therefore, the jurisdiction of civil Court is neither expressly nor impliedly bared under the Act. Not only this, by Section 53, even it has been provided that whenever a difference arises between two or more persons in regard to their mutual rights or liabilities in respect of the use, construction or maintenance of a water course, then such person may apply in writing to the Divisional Irrigation Officer stating the matter in dispute. Then the Divisional Irrigation Officer may, after giving notice to the other party, proceed to enquire into the said dispute and is required to pass an order and that order is also final as per sub-section (2) of Section 53 of the Act of 1954, but only until it is set aside by the decree of the Civil Court. Therefore, as stated above, the civil Court's jurisdiction is there in the matters referred above. 20. Twice the writ petitions have been entertained by this Court and rightly, instead of deciding any disputed question of fact by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the matter was referred to the concerned authority-the Executive Engineer, to decide the matter including the questions of facts after giving opportunity to the parties to produce evidence and after hearing the cultivators. From the all averments made in the writ petitions in the third round of litigation also, it is clear that all the writ petitioners want to assail the finding of fact recorded by the Executive Engineer in the impugned orders. The disputed questions of fact are that (1) what were the number of siphons sanctioned to the cultivators, (2) for which land the siphons were sanctioned, (3) whether land in question is Khatedari tenancy land or Ghair Khatedari tenancy land of the cultivators or land for which the cultivators are taking water is illegally occupied land, (4) what was the size of the pipe sanctioned and (5) whether on spot the cultivators have installed same number of siphons and installed the pipe of the same size which was sanctioned to them. The above issues are essentially issues of facts and, therefore, in writ jurisdiction this finding of fact, in the facts of the case, could not have been agitated because mere sanction order of siphon and size of pipe itself, may be one aspect but number of siphons installed on spot and size of pipe on spot can be examined only on the basis of the evidence in each case. Therefore, even in first round of writ petition itself, the learned Single Judge did not decide these issues and rightly sent the matter to the Executive Engineer (Divisional Irrigation Officer). Again, when the petitioners approached this Court to challenge the order dated 28.3.2007 passed by the Executive Engineer, then also this Court did not choose to decide the disputed questions of facts and remanded the matter to the Executive Engineer concerned who, in turn, decided the disputed questions of facts. In these facts, if petitioners had grievance against the order passed by the Executive Engineer then, the proper remedy for the petitioners would have been by preferring appeals under Rule 55 of the Rules of 1955, as even if the order has been passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer (the Executive Engineer) in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in writ jurisdiction even then the orders passed by the Executive Engineer in individual case of the cultivators are the original order passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer in its original jurisdiction and appeal lies against those orders under Rule 55 of the Rules of 1955. The respondents took this objection in their reply to the writ petitions. The respondents took this objection in their reply to the writ petitions. However, the learned Single Judge found to merit in the writ petitions, therefore, it appears that respondents this objection has not been decided. 21. Ordinarily, when finding of fact has been recorded by the fact finding authority having jurisdiction under any Act, then the High Court in writ jurisdiction is normally slow in re-appreciating the evidence and would not like to interfere in the finding of fact unless that finding of fact suffers from any error of law or finding of fact vitiated because of consideration of evidence which could not have been considered or if the authority has not taken into account the evidence which was before him etc. In present controversy, it is clear that for the same dispute, twice the matter was examined by the competent authority. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly accepted the finding of fact recorded by the Executive Engineer and rightly did not decide to re-open the question of facts. The Executive Engineer rightly held that the cultivators cannot get more water by installing more siphons than the sanctioned number of siphons or by installing bigger size of pipe than the sanctioned size of pipe. None of the cultivator can claim any right to get water supply for irrigation of his agricultural land on the plea that he has bigger land and he continued to irrigate the entire land through illegally installed siphons or illegally installed pipes. The cultivators who have sanctioned irrigation facility, may be entitled to the water to the sanctioned quantity through sanctioned siphon system and through sanctioned size of pipe. This was the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge also in first round of writ petitions, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 161/2006-Purna Ram & Anr. vs. the State of Raj. & Ors. and other connected writ petitions, wherein it has been clearly held by the learned Single Judge of this Court that "the concerned cultivator shall be provided irrigation facility to the extent/originally sanctioned, ....". As stated above, there is no reason to take a different view than taken by the learned Single Judge while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 161/2007 and connected matters vide judgment dated 27.2.2007. 22. As stated above, there is no reason to take a different view than taken by the learned Single Judge while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 161/2007 and connected matters vide judgment dated 27.2.2007. 22. So far as the observations of the Executive Engineer in the impugned order dated the cultivators who are Ghair Khatedar tenants of the land are not entitled to irrigation facility is concerned, that was not relevant for the purpose of deciding this controversy because of the reason that even a person, whether khatedar or Ghair Khatedar tenant, can take water from any irrigation work in accordance with the provisions of law governing the subject and the Ghair Khatedar tenant is also a tenant which is clear from the definition of Ghair Khatedar tenant given under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 which says that every tenant other than a khatedar tenant, a tenant of khudkasht or a sub-tenant shall be a Ghair Khatedar tenant. Under the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act,1954 or Rules framed thereunder, it is no where provided that Ghair Khatedar tenant shall not be entitled to irrigation facility and it could not have been because of the reason that under various laws, the lands are allotted to the cultivators on temporary cultivation basis or with restriction that no khatedari tenancy right shall accrue to said allottee of the land upto a particular period. If the irrigation facility cannot be given to Ghair Khatedar tenant then all such persons will be debarred to take water for cultivation from the irrigation work which will make the allotment of agricultural land to any person impossible as no body will take the land on allotment where he cannot get the water. It appears that the observation of the Executive Engineer was un-intentional and may have been for the cultivators who are not even tenants in the agricultural land and may be in unauthorised occupation of the land. Be it as it may be. The issue in the present controversy was whether any cultivator can avail the irrigation facility beyond the sanctioned number of siphons system and water from the pipe of size beyond the sanctioned size. Be it as it may be. The issue in the present controversy was whether any cultivator can avail the irrigation facility beyond the sanctioned number of siphons system and water from the pipe of size beyond the sanctioned size. For this question, the answer has been given in negative and we are in full agreement with that decision given by the Executive Engineer and it is held that the persons who had no valid sanction order for installation of siphons, are not entitled to any irrigation facility. The cultivators can take water from the canal through sanctioned size of pipe only and not beyond that. The persons who installed siphons without any lawful order, if took the water illegally and in violation to the Rules, then they are not entitled to any relief and cannot claim any right on the basis of their long illegal activity of taking water. 23. At this juncture, it will be worthwhile to mention here that the respondents, in reply to the writ petitions, pointed out that under sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 of the Rules of 1955, a punitive rate has been prescribed who draws excess water by placing siphons on canal with further liability that such person shall be debarred from the canal irrigation for one year. In case the respondents officers have not taken action against such person in time, that lapse on the part of the respondents officers cannot create right in favour of those defaulting cultivators who drew water by illegally installing siphons or by installing pipe of bigger size. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that at a particular point of time, there may be more availability of water but now there is a scarcity of water and in view of the above reasons, the persons who are entitled water lawfully and in accordance with Rules, they cannot be denied the irrigation facility to continue water facility of those persons who are taking water illegally or who took water illegally for years. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to mention here that the fact finding authority the Executive Engineer has not held that the petitioners, who had no sanction order of installation of siphons etc., were getting irrigation facility since 20 years and there is no reason for this Court to determine this issue which is a disputed question of fact, therefore, also the petitioners have no right to claim continuation of irrigation facility, if it is yet running. 24. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in these Special Appeals. Hence all the Special Appeals are dismissed.