JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 2. Shri N.L. Joshi learned counsel representing the petitioners relies upon the Single Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Amarjeet Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan, reported in 2017(3) WLC (Raj.) 506 and urges that the Executive Engineer acted with gross illegality and arbitrariness while imposing penalty of 20% of water usage charges upon all farmers of Chak 78 RB/A without identifying the particular person who was responsible for the alleged water theft. He thus urges that order (Annexure-3) dated 04.11.2015 and the order (Annexure-1) dated 22.01.2015 whereby, all the farmers of the entire chak measuring 545.85 bighas have been penalised in a blanket manner without affirming that guilt for the water theft is per se illegal and arbitrary and hence, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted. 3. Shri Rajpurohit, learned AGC appearing on behalf of the respondents is not in a position to dispute the fact that Executive Engineer did not fix the liability of the act which provides that the persons who were using water supply unauthorisedly cannot be identified and all the persons were penalised in respect of water theft. He further urged that as per Section 33 of the Act, where the persons responsible for unauthorised use of water cannot be identified, all persons chargeable in respect of water supply can be penalised. 4. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 22.01.2015, it is manifest that the Executive Engineer surmised that because an underground tunnel had been constructed beneath the wall of the canal under the Moga, theft of water must have been committed. Manifestly, under Section 31 of the Act, the penalty of 20 times tawan for the alleged water theft could only have been imposed after fixing the liability of the person concerned. It is relevant to mention here that after investigation of the FIR No.21/2014 lodged by the President of the Water Usage Association with these very allegations, has given a negative final report finding the case to be false. So far as Section 33 of the Act is concerned, as per the said provision, the amount of Tawan can be levied in case the persons committing theft of water could not be identified "to the extent of water uses charges only". 5. So far as Section 33 of the Act is concerned, as per the said provision, the amount of Tawan can be levied in case the persons committing theft of water could not be identified "to the extent of water uses charges only". 5. In this background, the twenty times Tawan imposed by the Executive Engineer by way of penalty upon all farmers of the disputed chak by resorting to Section 31 of the Act cannot be sustained. The controversy at hand is squarely covered by the above referred Single Bench Judgment. Thus, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 6. Thus, the instant writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 04.11.2015 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Circle, Sri Ganganagar and the order dated 22.01.2015 passed by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources (South Division), Sri Ganganagar are set aside. Stay application is disposed of No order as to costs.