JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to include his agriculture land comprising khasra no.186, 192 and 193 shown in the revenue record as "chahi" for canal irrigation under Jawai Command Project. 2. The facts relevant are that the land comprising khasra no.186, 192 and 196 the khatedari land of the petitioner's father situated at revenue village-Rajpura was included in Jawai Command Area. After the death of the petitioner's father, the land comprising khasra no.186 stands mutated in the name of the petitioner, land comprising khasra no.192 stands mutated in the name of petitioner's wife and land comprising khasra no.196 has been mutated in the name of the petitioner's sisters namely, Hemi and Sumi. The said land was included in the Jawai Command Area vide notification dated 15.2.92, which has not been de-notified till this date. The grievance of the petitioner is that the land in question was extended irrigation facility from the canal for years together, however, the same has been discontinued all of a sudden on the ground that the petitioner's land falls in the category of "chahi" and thus, in view of availability of other source of water for irrigation, the said land is not eligible for canal irrigation. 3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents precisely taking the stand that since the nature of the petitioner's land is "chahi", it cannot be extended canal irrigation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the canal irrigation facility already extended to the petitioner's land has been discontinued by the respondent in perfunctory manner without extending him an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel urged that the petitioner made a representation to the respondents clarifying the position that the water in the Well existing in the petitioner's land is saline which cannot be used for agriculture purpose and therefore, their action in denying the canal irrigation facility to the petitioner's land without verifying availability of any permanent and reliable other source of irrigation is absolutely unjustified, but to no avail. 5. 5. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Government Counsel submitted that if any field is irrigated from other source of a permanent and reliable character by virtue of provisions of Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Irrigation & Drainage Rules, 1955 (for short "the Rules"), the same can be debarred from canal irrigation. It is submitted that since the nature of the petitioner's land is "chahi", keeping in view the alternative irrigation facility available, the decision of the respondents in debarring the petitioner's field from canal irrigation cannot be faulted with. However, learned counsel fairly submitted that before taking a decision to debar the petitioner's field from canal irrigation, no opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, the petitioner's field fall within the Jawai Command Area and was extended facility of canal irrigation, which continued upto the year 2011. It is also not disputed that before discontinuing the canal irrigation facility, the petitioner was not extended an opportunity of hearing. It is true that under Rule 10 of the Rules, any field which is irrigated from any other source of a permanent and reliable character can be debarred from canal irrigation, but then, before taking a decision in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules, on the ground of availability of alternative source of irrigation, the authority concerned must arrive at a categorical finding that the alternative source of irrigation is of a permanent and reliable character. It is pertinent to note that it is the specific case of the petitioner that though the nature of the land is shown in the revenue record as "chahi", the water available in the Well existing in his field being saline cannot be used for agriculture purpose and therefore, before debarring the petitioner's field from canal irrigation, the respondents were under an obligation to take into consideration the actual factual position after due verification. In this view of the matter, the decision of the respondent in debarring the petitioner from the canal irrigation without giving him an opportunity of hearing is ex facie violative of principles of natural justice. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. In this view of the matter, the decision of the respondent in debarring the petitioner from the canal irrigation without giving him an opportunity of hearing is ex facie violative of principles of natural justice. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to reconsider their decision in debarring the petitioner's agriculture field from canal irrigation and pass an appropriate order in writing afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.