JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this petition for writ may kindly be allowed: (A) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the order dated 22.09.2022 (Annexure-12) passed by the Superintending Engineer may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside and order passed by the Executive Engineer may kindly be restored. (B) Notice dated 01.10.2022 (Annexure-13) may also kindly be declared illegal and quashed and set aside. (D) Any other appropriate order or relief which this Hon’ble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the humble petitioners.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the petitioners are agriculturists having their agricultural land in 25 BB-II in Murabba No. 65 & 66; petitioner no. 1-Jhankar Singh has agricultural land in Murabba No. 66 from Kila No. 1 to 15 total 12.10 Bighas; petitioner no. 2-Sangaram Singh has remaining land (12.10 Bigha) of Murabba No. 66 from Kila No. 11 to 25 and; petitioner no. 3-Sukhjiwan Singh has land in Murabba No. 65 from Kila No. 11 to 25 total 12.15 Bighas. 2.1. In the year 2016, the construction of Pucca watercourse was undertaken by the Irrigation Department and the CAD; they intended to close the Nakas of the petitioners at kila No. 6 & 16 of Murabba No. 65 and 10 & 20 of Murbba No. 66. The petitioners filed an application before the concerned Executive Engineer praying therein that the sanctioned Naka at Kila No. 5 & 1 may be cancelled and the same may be shifted at Kila No. 6 & 10 of Murabba No. 65-66 and additional Naka may be sanctioned at Kila No. 16 & 20 of Murbba No. 65 & 66 respectively. 2.2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application before the Executive Engineer on 18.04.2016 for keeping the existing Nakas open at the time of construction of the watercourse, until decision on the application for sanctioning of the Nakas. The respondents continued with the construction of the watercourse and no link was kept for petitioners’ Nakas in question. 2.2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application before the Executive Engineer on 18.04.2016 for keeping the existing Nakas open at the time of construction of the watercourse, until decision on the application for sanctioning of the Nakas. The respondents continued with the construction of the watercourse and no link was kept for petitioners’ Nakas in question. The petitioners thus filed another application on 06.05.2016 before the Executive Engineer for providing the link to the proposed Nakas in question. 2.3. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a writ petition bearing S.B.C.W.P No. 5599/2016 before this Hon’ble Court, whereupon while issuing notices, vide order dated 19.05.2016, the Hon’ble Court directed the respondents to continue the irrigation facilities of the petitioners through the Nakas in question. 2.4 Subsequently, the Executive Engineer vide order dated 27.07.2017 cancelled the sanctioned naka at Kila No. 1 & 5 of Murbba No. 65 & 66 respectively, while sanctioning the Naka at kila No. 6 & 16 of Murabba No. 65 and 10 & 20 of Murbba No. 66. Thereafter, the aforementioned writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous vide order dated 09.08.2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court. The respondent no. 4 & 5 preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer against the order dated 27.07.2017, whereupon, the Superintending Engineer vide the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 allowed the said appeal, while quashing the order dated 27.07.2017 and remanding the matter back to the Executive Engineer for fresh consideration. The respondents issued a notice dated 01.10.2022 to the petitioners for closure of the Nakas in question within 3 days thereafter. 2.5. Thus, aggrieved by the said order dated 22.09.2022 passed by Superintending Engineer and the impugned notice dated 01.10.2022 issued by the respondents, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Executive Engineer passed the order of sanctioning the Naka in favour of the petitioners after duly considering the technical report of the Junior Engineer concerned and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Superintending Engineer is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have been irrigating their fields through the existing Nakas for last about 75 years and no objection has been raised by any person; thus, the subsequent objection raised by the respondents cannot be sustained. 3.2. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have been irrigating their fields through the existing Nakas for last about 75 years and no objection has been raised by any person; thus, the subsequent objection raised by the respondents cannot be sustained. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that since the petitioners’ land exists in Murabba No. 65 and 66 and land of the respondents exists in Murabba No. 69 and 70, therefore their Nakas are intact; therefore, the Superintending Engineer ought not have allowed the respondents’ appeal vide the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that in compliance of the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the Superintending Engineer, the Nakas at Kila No. 5 & 1 of Murabba No. 65 & 66 have been opened and the Nakas of the petitioners at kila No. 6 & 16 of Murabba No. 65 and 10 & 20 of Murbba No. 66 have been closed. 4.1. It was further submitted that after remand of the matter, the Executive Engineer after hearing all the parties concerned, passed an order dated 17.03.2023, whereby the application for sanctioning of the Nakas in the aforementioned Murbbas of the petitioners was rejected and the sanctioned Nakas at Kila No. 5 and 1 of Murbba No. 65 & 66 respectively have been ordered to be maintained. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the entire issue has been decided by the Executive Engineer vide the said order, which was passed, subsequent to passing of the impugned order by the Superintending Engineer, and thus, nothing further survives in the present case. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case along. 6. This Court observes that The petitioners filed an application before the concerned Executive Engineer praying therein that the sanctioned Naka at Kila No. 5 & 1 may be cancelled and the same may be shifted at Kila No. 6 & 10 of Murabba No. 65-66 and additional Naka may be sanctioned at Kila No. 16 & 20 of Murbba No. 65 & 66 respectively; the said application was allowed on 27.07.2017. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2017, the respondents filed an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 22.09.2022, while quashing the order passed by the Executive Engineer remanding back the matter to the Executive Engineer for fresh consideration. 7. This Court further observes that the petitioners without any prior approval from the competent authority, closed the sanctioned Naka and illegally used the Naka for irrigating the land in question. This Court also observes that the land in question has the sanctioned Naka and the petitioners have sufficient facility for irrigating the land in question. 8. This Court also observes that after remand of the matter by the Superintending Engineer vide the impugned order, the Executive Engineer vide the order dated 17.03.2023, clearly stated that the field staff prepared the technical report and also inspected Chak No. 25 BB-II Murbba No. 65 and 66; after completion of the inspection of the aforesaid Murbba as well as in view of the technical report, it has been concluded that sanctioned Naka at Kila No 5 & 1 is not required to be shifted. Thus, vide the said order dated 17.03.2023, the Executive Engineer rejected the application for sanctioning of the aforementioned Nakas in question, which is justified in law. 9. In light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petition. 10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.