JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This writ petition is preferred on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 11.02.1999 passed by respondent No. 1 the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, North Division, Hanumangarh Junction, whereby the earlier order dated 04.07.1995 passed by the same authority is partly modified and the order passed by respondent No. 3 the Executive Engineer, Gang Canal (North Division), Sri Ganganagar on 19.01.1993 was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 5- Sucha Singh moved an application before the Executive Engineer with the contention that the irrigation facility provided to the agriculture land, recorded in the name of his wife Gurudev Kaur be fixed at Kila No. 21. The Executive Engineer after inspection and after hearing the objections of petitioners and other concerned persons vide order dated 19.01.1993 ordered for fixing the irrigation facility to the agriculture fields of the Gurudev Kaur from Kila No. 21. 3. Against the order of the Executive Engineer, the petitioners and one other person Darshan Singh preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, however, the said appeal came to be dismissed and some further directions were issued. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners preferred a second appeal before the Chief Engineer, Hanumangarh Junction who while confirming the order passed by the Superintending Engineer has ordered that the irrigation facility to the agriculture field of Gurudev Kaur be given from the Naka situated at Kila No. 25. 4. Being aggrieved with the same, respondent No. 5 preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3163/1995 before this Court, however, the said writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 08.11.1995. 5. The order dated 08.11.1995 is reproduced hereunder:- "The apprehension of the petitioner as projected by the learned counsel Mr. Lodha is that by allowing water supply out of Kila No. 25 to the land of the respondents the supply of water to the petitioner out of Naka of Kila No. 21 shall stand closed or reduced. If that is so, the petitioner would be at liberty to move the Chief Engineer in this respect who will hear the petitioner and dispose of this contentions by a speaking order. The petitioner is directed to move the Chief Engineer within seven days from today and till then status-quo is ordered to be maintained. The Chief Engineer is directed to expedite hearing of the case. The petitioner is directed to move the Chief Engineer within seven days from today and till then status-quo is ordered to be maintained. The Chief Engineer is directed to expedite hearing of the case. No other point survives in this writ petition and the same is hereby disposed of with the aforesaid observations." 6. Pursuant to the above order passed by this Court, the Chief Engineer had considered the submissions of the party concerned in a fresh hearing and confirmed the order dated 19.01.1993 passed by the Executive Engineer. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as a matter of fact the Executive Engineer has no right to order for providing irrigation facility to the agriculture fields of Gurudev Kaur on an application moved by her husband. 8. It is argued that when the Gurudev Kaur herself did move any application for providing water facility to her agriculture field from Kila No. 21, the order passed by the Executive Engineer dated 19.01.1993 is illegal and is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that the Chief Engineer has taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and has illegally passed the order dated 11.02.1999. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. 10. It is noticed that from the orders impugned, it is clear that the said objection has been raised by the petitioners during oral arguments though in the memo of the appeal, the same ground has been taken. Otherwise also when Gurudev Kaur had objected the action of her husband of moving an application for fixing the irrigation facility from Kila No. 21, the objection, if any, raised by the petitioners is of no significance. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to demonstrate how irrigation facility to the agriculture fields of them going to be affected by providing irrigation facility to the agriculture fields of Gurudev Kaur from Kila No. 21 and taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ petition. 12. Hence, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.