JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to question the order dated 24.02.2011 whereby the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Sriganganagar has dismissed the appeal (No. 123/2010) preferred against the order dated 16.07.2010 as passed by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, South Division, Sriganganagar. 2. By the aforesaid order dated 16.07.2010, the Executive Engineer, while examining the revised barabandi proposals for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12, considered the claim made by the respondent No. 4 Ajayab Singh for water turn on a part of the land in question and opposition thereof by the present petitioner Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur; and found that though earlier, the water turn had been continuing in the name of the petitioner in relation to 5.10 bighas of land comprised in Murabba No. 39 and 5.00 bighas in Murabba No. 36 of Chak 6TK but then, the said land had been of joint khata and as per the shares of the respective parties, the petitioner was entitled for 6.15 bighas only; and, therefore, directed for re-submission of the proposals with reference to the existing revenue record and after taking report regarding possession from the Tehsildar (Revenue). 3. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the petitioner preferred the appeal and contended before the Superintending Engineer that the water turn had continued in the name of her husband for last 25 years for the said 10.10 bighas of the land of Murabba Nos. 39 (5.10 bighas) and 36 (5.00 bighas); and that after the death of her husband, she was continuing in possession of the land in question. It was also contended that mutation of 1/70 part of the land of Murabba Nos. 33, 36 and 39 had wrongly been entered in the name of respondent No. 4 Ajayab Singh regarding which, an appeal was pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar ('SDO'). It was contended that until decision of the matter regarding ownership, as per the Standing Order No. 13, the existing arrangement ought not to have been changed and the respondent No.4 was not entitled to claim water turn for 3.10 bighas of land of Murabba No. 39. It was contended that until decision of the matter regarding ownership, as per the Standing Order No. 13, the existing arrangement ought not to have been changed and the respondent No.4 was not entitled to claim water turn for 3.10 bighas of land of Murabba No. 39. The learned Superintending Engineer has not agreed with the submissions of the petitioner-appellant and has proceeded to dismiss the appeal on 24.02.2011 with the following observations:- ( l ) vfHkHkk"kd vihykUV dks lquk ,oa ewy i=koyh dk voyksdu mijkUr ik;k fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k jsLiksa }kjk jktLo fjdkMZ@bUrdky dh izfr izLrqr dj eq0u0 39 ds 3-10 ch?kk dh ckjh Lo;a ds uke cU/kokus dh ekax dh] tks fd iwoZ esa n'kZuflag ( vihykUV ds ifr dk uke ) ds uke ls py jgh FkhA eq0v0 33] 36 o 39 ds 9-555 gSDV;j esa 70 fgLlk jsLiksa i{k ds uke ntZ gSA blh rF; dks/;ku esa j[krs gq;s v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us vihykd`r vkns'k }kjk nksuksa i{kksa dh ckjh jktLo fjdkMZ vuqlkj cka/kus o ekSdk ij dCtk dkLr dks iphZ tkjh djus ds vkns'k tkjh fd;s gSA pwafd ntZ bUrdky dks fdlh U;k;ky; }kjk LFkfxr@fujLr ugha fd;k gSA vihykUV Lo;a dk fgLlk dk ntZ gS rFkk jsLiksa dk Hkh fgLkk ntZ gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vihykUV i{k dh ckjh fgLlk vuqlkj cka/kus o jsliksa dh ckjh fgLls vuqlkj ugha cka/kus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA vihykUV ds ifr dk 135 fgLlk ntZ gS] tcfd ckjh 10-10 ch?kk dh py jgh FkhA ftls fujUrj tkjh ugha j[kk tk ldrkA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk pd 6 Vh0ds0 dh fjokbZt ckjh o"kZ 2010&2012 i=kad 697 fnukad 20-1-2011 }kjk Lohd`r fd;k tk pqdh gSA ftlesa eq0u0 36 o 39 ds jdck dh ckjh nksuksa i{kksa ds uke fjdkMZ esa ntZ fgLlk vuqlkj vyx&vyx cka/kh xbZ gSA mDr Lohd`r izLrko ekSdk ij 15-4-2011 ls izHkkoh gksxkA vr% mDr rF; ,oa fLFkfr dks/;ku esa j[krs gq;s vihyk.V dh vihy bl funsZ'k ds lkFk [kkfjt dh tkrh gS fd fgLls vuqlkj ekSdk ij dCtk ds lEcU/k esa jsosU;q vkWFkksfjVh ls ijke'kZ dj iphZ forj.k djsA " 4. The aforesaid order dated 24.02.2011 is sought to be questioned by way of this writ petition essentially with reference to the Standing Order No. 13 (Annex. The aforesaid order dated 24.02.2011 is sought to be questioned by way of this writ petition essentially with reference to the Standing Order No. 13 (Annex. 16); and it is contended that when the Department has specifically issued the instructions for not altering the existing arrangements in relation to the matters involving ownership disputes, the proposition for alteration in the present case remains illegal and unauthorised. It is also submitted that the order maintaining status quo as passed by the Revenue Court and pendency of the appeal against mutation has not been properly appreciated by the concerned authorities. 5. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the material placed on record, this Court is not persuaded to consider interference in the impugned orders concurrently passed by the Irrigation Authorities. 6. The fact of the matter remains that as at present, the share of the respondent No. 4 in the land in question has duly been entered in the revenue records. The ex parte injunction order as issued by the SDO in the month of June 2010 in Misc. Case No. 51/2010 (Annex.12) has been to the effect that the defendant (the respondent No.4 herein) shall not alienate the land in dispute by sale or mortgage. Even if such an injunction against alienation has been in operation, the existing position of the revenue record could not have been ignored by the authorities concerned. The authorities, yet, have taken care to direct that the slips shall be issued after taking the report about the possession at the site. The orders as passed by the authorities concerned cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error nor lead to failure of justice. 7. The Standing Order No. 13, as referred, cannot be said to be laying down a statutory rule and even therein, the directions essentially are to the effect that the Irrigation Authorities may not interfere in the dispute pertaining to ownership. Herein, the authorities have not otherwise attempted to transgress into the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court regarding the dispute of ownership but have only directed ratable distribution of irrigation water as per the existing record. Such exercise of jurisdiction only subserves the cause of justice. 8. No case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out. 9. As a result of the aforesaid, this writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.Petition dismissed. Such exercise of jurisdiction only subserves the cause of justice. 8. No case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out. 9. As a result of the aforesaid, this writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.Petition dismissed. *******