ORDER : ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. This special appeal is directed against judgment dated 24.07.2018 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellants-petitioners against orders dated 03.11.2017 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) passed by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Hanumangarh cancelling the water course and dated 04.04.2018 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by Superintending Engineer, Hanumangarh dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants, has been rejected. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed that the Executive Engineer, Pilibanga Division, Hanumangarh Junction vide order dated 22.07.1970 sanctioned new water course for Stone Nos. 229/319 to 229/321 through Kila Nos. 5, 6, 15, 16, & 25 of Murabba Nos. 229/319 & 229/320 and the earlier water course at Murabba Nos. 228/320, 230/320 & 230/321 was cancelled. The water course continued to be in existence and the appellants were availing the irrigation facilities. 3. On 27.06.2017 respondent No.3 – Manjeet Singh filed an application seeking cancellation of the water course situated at Stone No. 229/319 through Kila Nos. 5, 6, 15, 16 & 25. The application was forwarded to Assistant Engineer, who got the issue examined by Chairman of the Water Users Association, whose report was got examined technically from the Junior Engineer. 4. The appellants filed their objections. Whereafter the parties were heard and affected agriculturists were got served. 5. 5, 6, 15, 16 & 25. The application was forwarded to Assistant Engineer, who got the issue examined by Chairman of the Water Users Association, whose report was got examined technically from the Junior Engineer. 4. The appellants filed their objections. Whereafter the parties were heard and affected agriculturists were got served. 5. The Executive Engineer, after hearing the parties, noticing the claim made by the appellants and respondent No. 3 and referring to the statements of affected agriculturists, by his order dated 03.11.2017 came to the conclusion and directed as under:- ^^i=koyh dk voyksdu djus o vizkFkhZd`"kdks ds C;kuks ij euu djus ij ik;k fd pd 3 chvkjMCY;w@, esa vkns'k dzekad 3674 fnukad 22-07-1970 ds }kjk lgk;d vfHk;Urk dh tk¡p fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij rRdkyhu ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vuqlkj i-u- 230@319 ls 230@321 rd i-u- 229@319 ds fdyk u- 5] 6] 15] 16] 25 esa [kkyk lery Hkwfe esa ls xqtjus ij Lohd`r fd;k x;k Fkk orZeku ekSdk tk¡p o rduhdh tk¡p fjiksVZ vuqlkj ysoy i-u-230@319 ,Q,l,y 624-10] 229@320 ,Q,l,y 623-65] 230@320 ,Q,l,y 623-80 tcfd mpre ,Qds,y 621-00 vkrk gS rFkk lh,Mh }kjk fufeZr iDds tyekxZ ds ukdks ls eq-u- 230@320 o 229@320 dh flapkbZ csgrj gksxhA lh,Mh }kjk iDds [kkyk dk fuekZ.k djus ,oa izHkkfor jdck dk cgko lery gksus ij i-u-230@319 ls 230@321 rd i-u-229@319 ds fdyk u-5] 6] 15] 16] 25 esa iwoZ Lohd`r tyekxZ dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha jg tkrk gSA vr% rduhdh vk/kkj ij iwoZ Lohd`r tyekxZ fujLr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk gSA** 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants herein filed an appeal before the Superintending Engineer against order dated 03.11.2017. 7. The appellate authority while noticing the contentions of both the sides dismissed the appeal by its order dated 04.04.2018 as under:- ^^nksuksa i{kksa dks lquk x;k ,oa [k.Mh; dk;kZy; dh i=koyh o vihyh; i=koyh esa miyC/k nLrkostksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA [k.Mh; flapu vf/kdkjh us nksuksa i{kksa dks fof/kor lqudj] orZeku ekSdk tk¡p o rduhdh fjiksVZ@ysoy vkfn dk voyksdu djus ,oa lh,Mh foHkkx }kjk fufeZr iDds tyekxZ ds ukdks ls csgrj flapkbZ gksuk ekurs gq;s vihyk/khu vkns'k ikfjr fd;s gSA [k.Mh; flapu vf/kdkjh }kjk vihyk/khu vkns'k orZeku ekSdk tk¡p o ysoy bR;kfn dks e/;utj j[krs gq, rduhdh vk/kkj ij ikfjr fd;s x;s gSA [k.Mh; flapu vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k csgrj flapkbZ lqfo/kk o rduhdh n`f"V ls mfpr gksus ds QyLo:i cgky j[ks tkdj vihy vihykUV~l [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA** 8. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants approached this Court by filing S.B.C.W.P. No. 5154/2018. 9. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties by the impugned judgment dated 24.07.2018 came to the conclusion that the Executive Engineer made due and objective consideration of the entire technical data before sanctioning the new water courses and when the new distribution drains were constructed based on chak plan prepared by the CAD, the appellants did not raise any objections and that the Court would be unjustified in substituting its own wisdom on the technical knowledge of the competent authorities and consequently, rejected the writ petition. 10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that both the authorities under the Act and the learned Single Judge did not deal with the issues raised by the appellants opposing the cancellation of water course, which was in existence since 1970. The only reason indicated by respondent No. 3 was that the water course was illegal and that the same is resulting in problems and disputes between the agriculturists, which aspect was factually incorrect as the water course was duly sanctioned vide order dated 22.07.1970 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). 11. The appellants raised several objections and in the statements as noticed by the Executive Engineer of the agriculturists opposed the cancellation of water course. However, the authorities without dealing with the objections raised by the appellants, passed the order merely based on the technical report, which report was prepared at the back of the appellants. 12. Further submissions have been made that the appellate authority by merely noticing the various objections, in a wholly cursory manner rejected the appeal. 13. Submissions were made that the learned Single Judge decided the writ petition on the ground that at the time of preparation of chak plan by CAD the appellants allegedly did not raise any objections, for which, there was no occasion, inasmuch as, the water course in question was continuing and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be set aside. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the State and respondent No. 3 vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the State and respondent No. 3 vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. It was, inter alia, contended that the plea raised is wholly baseless, inasmuch as, once the permanent water course has been constructed and the appellants are getting requisite water supply, the insistence to continue with the kaccha (temporary) water course is baseless, which is harming the interests of respondent No. 3. 15. Further submissions have been made that once the technically equipped officer has given his report confirming the plea raised by the respondent No. 3, no case for interference in the orders passed is made out and the learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellants. 16. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the parties with reference to various documents, maps and chak plan etc. sought to make submissions regarding status of water supply prior to passing of the order and in case the orders were implemented and the water course was to be cancelled. 17. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 18. In so far as the jurisdiction of authorities in passing the orders cancelling water course/removing any outlet is concerned, the same is drawn from provisions of Rule 11(3) of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Rules, 1956, which provide for issuing notice requiring of presence of agriculturists affected by such reduction or removal to make objections and after considering all such objections, necessary orders can be passed and against the orders passed, the appeal has been provided to the Superintending Irrigation Officer. 19. Apparently, on application having been made by respondent No. 3 seeking cancellation of the existing water course, report was sought from the Chairman of the Water Users Association, which was got technically examined from the Junior Engineer and thereafter notices were issued, wherein, objections were filed by the appellants and after statements were filed, the order impugned, as quoted hereinbefore, was passed. 20. A perusal of the order would indicate that the same essentially is based on technical report, wherein, conclusions have been arrived at that the irrigation would be better from the permanent water course and there was no justification for continuing with the disputed water course. 21. 20. A perusal of the order would indicate that the same essentially is based on technical report, wherein, conclusions have been arrived at that the irrigation would be better from the permanent water course and there was no justification for continuing with the disputed water course. 21. Not a word has been indicated in relation to the objections raised by the appellants, which inter alia, pertained to the fact that their irrigation/water supply would be adversely affected and that in case the water course was cancelled, the appellants would not be able to get appropriate irrigation. 22. The appellate authority, as would be noticed from the order quoted hereinbefore, in a wholly cursory manner without dealing with any of the grounds raised in the appeal, again based on the technical report, rejected the appeal. 23. The learned Single Judge on an additional ground that when the permanent water course was sanctioned, the appellants did not raise any objection and the fact that the orders were based on technical reports, rejected the writ petition. 24. The very fact that provisions under Rules provide for filing of objections to the proposed cancellation/alteration, the irrigation authorities are bound to deal with the objections raised. The Executive Engineer has not even indicated that the objections raised were baseless and simply by reiterating the technical report, which apparently was not prepared in presence of the appellants has passed the order, which alone could not be made the basis for passing of the order. 25. The appellate authority in a manner which is wholly contrary to the exercise of appellate powers and passing of the order by the appellate authority, without dealing with any of the grounds raised, in a most cursory and non-speaking manner, rejected the appeal. 26. The learned Single Judge while dealing with the matter did not advert to the said aspects of the matter and ignoring the fact that despite construction of permanent water course, irrigation facilities were continuing unabated since 1970, dismissed the writ petition. 27. Various attempts were made by learned counsel for the parties during the course of submissions with reference to the documents, as noticed hereinbefore, to emphasize/re-emphasize/deny/contradict each others’ case in relation to the position of the water supply to appellants’ fields. 27. Various attempts were made by learned counsel for the parties during the course of submissions with reference to the documents, as noticed hereinbefore, to emphasize/re-emphasize/deny/contradict each others’ case in relation to the position of the water supply to appellants’ fields. The rights of the parties in this regard cannot be appreciated by the Court and the authorities under the Act and the Rules are best suited to consider the said aspects, which at the earlier stage apparently have not been considered by them. 28. In view of the above discussion, the order dated 03.11.2017 passed by the Executive Engineer, the order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the Superintending Engineer and judgment dated 24.07.2018 passed by learned Single Judge are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Executive Engineer to pass a fresh speaking order keeping in view the observations made hereinbefore and by dealing with the objections raised by the appellants appropriately and expeditiously. 29. The parties would be free to place further material before the Executive Engineer as sought to be relied on before this Court. 30. The Executive Engineer would pass the order preferably within a period of four weeks from the date the parties appear before the said authority. 31. The parties shall appear before the Executive Engineer on 13.01.2020. 32. No order as to costs.