JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant writ petition is directed against the order (Annexure-2) dated 03.11.2017 passed by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Hanumangarh, directing removal of the water course existing at the fields of the petitioners since the year 1970 and granting sanction for construction of new water course in accordance with the recommendations made by the CAD in the following terms: ^^i=koyh dk voyksdu djus o vÁkFkhZd`"kdksa ds C;kuksa ij euu djus ij ik;k fd pd 3 chŒvkjŒMCY;wŒ@, esa vkns'k Øekad 3674 fnukad 22-07-1970 ds }kjk lgk;d vfHk;Urk dh tkap fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij rRdkyhu ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vuqlkj iŒuŒ 230@319 ls 230@321 rd iŒuŒ 229@319 ds fdyk uaŒ 5] 6] 15] 16] 25 esa [kkyk lery Hkwfe esa ls xqtjus ij Lohd`r fd;k x;k FkkA orZeku ekSdk tkap o rduhdh tkap fjiksVZ vuqlkj ysoy 230@319 ,QŒ,lŒ,yŒ 624-10] 229@320 ,QŒ,lŒ,yŒ 623-65] 230@320 ,QŒ,lŒ,yŒ 623-80 tcfd mpre ,QŒdsŒ,yŒ 621-00 vkrk gS rFkk lhŒ,ŒMhŒ }kjk fufeZr iDds tyekxZ ds ukdks ls eqŒuŒ 230@320 o 229@320 dh flapkbZ csgrj gksxhA lhŒ,ŒMhŒ }kjk iDds [kyk dk fuekZ.k djus ,oa ÁHkkfor jdck dk cgko lery gksus ij iŒuŒ 230@319 ls 230@321 rd iŒuŒ 229@319 ds fdyk uaŒ 5] 6] 15] 16] 25 esa iwoZ Lohd`r tyekxZ dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha jg tkrk gSA vr% rduhdh vk/kkj iwoZ Lohd`r tyekxZ fujLr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gSA** 3. The said order was affirmed by the Superintending Engineer vide order (Annexure-4) dated 04.04.2018. 4. Shri Sudheer Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that the water course in question through which the petitioners’ fields were being irrigated was sanctioned in the year 1970 after due consideration of the technical data with the consent of all the parties concerned. As such, Shri Sharma urges that there is no justification for the decision to cancel the said water course which is in existence since the last 40 years. He further submits that the Executive Engineer does not have any powers of review and thus, the impugned order dated 03.11.2017 and the order dated 04.04.2018 are liable to be struck down as being illegal and arbitrary. 5. He further submits that the Executive Engineer does not have any powers of review and thus, the impugned order dated 03.11.2017 and the order dated 04.04.2018 are liable to be struck down as being illegal and arbitrary. 5. Per contra, Shri Sandhu and Shri Rajpurohit, learned counsel representing the respondents pointed out that the temporary irrigation system as it existed in the year 1970 consisted of drains dug up through mud and was highly prone to spillage, seepage, damage and theft, etc. The distribution system has recently undergone a sea change because now, the entire canal system has been revamped and done up through cement concrete structures and thus, the existing water levels have been materially changed requiring change in design and realignment of the existing temporary drains. The CAD has sanctioned new design of the water courses through various areas falling within the domain of the Division-II, Water Resources Department and since new water courses have been constructed, the decision to remove the existing water courses was taken after due consideration of the technical aspects viz. volume, flow levels, etc. and the new water courses have already been constructed and commissioned. They submit that the Executive Engineer passed the order dated 03.11.2017 after due and objective consideration of these material circumstances and since the decision was taken in materially changed scenario, it cannot be termed to be a review of the previous sanction made way back in the year 1970 which has become redundant. They further submit that the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the irrigation facility to their fields would be adversely affected by the newly constructed reinforced distribution system. On these grounds, they crave dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned orders, this Court is of the firm opinion that the Executive Engineer made due and objective consideration of the entire technical data (as per the CAD Chak plan) before sanctioning the new water courses and directing realignment/removal of the redundant existing ones which were sanctioned almost 40 years ago. It may be stated that the fresh chak plan on the basis whereof, the new distribution drains have been constructed was prepared by the CAD and the petitioner do not even claim to have raised any objection while this exercise was undergone. It may be stated that the fresh chak plan on the basis whereof, the new distribution drains have been constructed was prepared by the CAD and the petitioner do not even claim to have raised any objection while this exercise was undergone. Manifestly, with construction of permanent canal/drain system, the water levels would change and discharge would also improve and therefore, requisite rationalisation has to be done by realignment/ removing the redundant structures which were kaccha in nature. That precisely is the rational course of action which is described in the above quoted portion of the order passed by the Executive Engineer on 03.11.2017. As such, this Court would be totally unjustified in substituting its own wisdom on the technical knowledge of the competent authorities of the Water Resources Department who are duly qualified to deal with the water distribution system and to ensure its efficacious functioning. As two competent authorities of the respondent department having technical expertise in the subject of water distribution have, recorded concurrent findings of facts in the impugned orders while directing removal of the Kachcha water course existing at the fields of the petitioners and granting sanction for construction of new water course in accordance with the existing chak plan prepared by the CAD, this Court is not convinced in the least that either of these orders suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity whatsoever so as to require interference therein in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 7. In view of the above discussion, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order (Annexure-2) dated 03.11.2017 and the order (Annexure-4) dated 04.04.2018 and hence, the writ petition as well as stay application are dismissed as being devoid of merit.