JUDGMENT 1. At the outset, counsel for the respondent submits that if impugned orders dated 07.02.2012 (Annex.6) and 15.07.2013 (Annex.8) are implemented, then no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner as his water supply shall not be affected by implementation of such orders. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Hakam Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [Civil Writ (CW) No. 5059 of 2010, decided on 19.8.2016], relevant portion whereof is read as follows:- "6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, the water course which was earlier raw, stands converted into permanent water course and there exists a common sanctioned naka for irrigation of the lands comprising square Nos. 6, 9 & 10. It is not disputed that the sanction of the additional naka as demanded by the petitioner was objected to by the agriculturists having land in square Nos. 9 & 10. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that after taking into consideration the technical aspects of the matter, the Superintending Engineer has opined that as per the FKL chart there is no difference in level of the rakaba, as per design FSL of water course the square No. 6 is below 1 ft. to 2 ft. and level of the land being between 565.08 to 565.48, the difference is only 5 inch and therefore, the petitioner will have no difficulty in irrigating his land from the naka sanctioned at kila No. 25. Obviously, this court cannot sit in appeal over the conclusions arrived at after due consideration of all the technical aspects by the two authorities having expertise in the field. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, in the considered opinion of this court, the order impugned passed by the Superintending Engineer, affirming the order passed by the Executive Engineer, refusing to sanction additional naka in favour of the petitioner, does not warrant interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs." 2. 9. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs." 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that if no prejudice is going to be caused to him in terms of volume of water supplied, then he shall not press for quashing of the impugned orders, however, he seeks liberty to challenge those impugned orders again in case any prejudice is caused to him. 3. In light of limited submission the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to maintain the assurance given by Government Counsel Ms. Abhilasha Bora that the volume of water as well as time period for which water is being supplied to the petitioner shall not be affected while implementing the orders in-question. However, in case the petitioner feels that after the orders in-question are executed and he has any grievance, then the petitioner shall be free to approach this Court again.