JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been preferred under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs : “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this petition for writ may kindly be allowed: (i) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the letter dated 20.01.2023 (Annexure-2) as well as the order dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure-4) may kindly be declared illegal and without jurisdiction and be quashed and set aside; and (ii) Further it is prayed that the action of the respondent authorities in sanctioning/demarcating the water course in the petitioner’s land in Murabba No.35 (Revenue) Kila No.1, 10, 11, 20 & 21 may kindly be declared illegal and the respondents may kindly be restrained from constructing any water course in these Kila’s without following the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1955; and (iii) Further it is prayed that any consequential entries made in the revenue records (Jamabandi) Annexure-5, in consequence to the letter dated 20.01.2023 (Annx.2) as well as the order dated 24.02.2023 (Annx.4) may kindly be declared nonest, illegal and be set aside; and (iv) 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. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the petitioner’s agricultural land, according to the revenue records, is situated in Chak 2 LNP, Murabba No. 35 Kila No. 1-25 and as per the irrigation records, the same is in 6-D Choti, Murabba No. 60. In order to construct a water course in the petitioner's land, a report was obtained from the Executive Engineer (respondent no.2) on 20.01.2023 by one Jagnandan Singh in which the respondent no.2 stated that the water course in Kila No. 1, 10, 11, 20 and 21 (land in question) was to be recorded in the revenue records. 2.1 Thereafter, the matter was forwarded to the Tehsildar, Ganganagar by the respondent no.4 to make an entry in the revenue records of the water course on 24.02.2023. In consequence, the petitioner’s land was ordered to be taken away, two biswas each, without any compensation. The petitioner along with other agriculturists of Chak filed an application stating therein that there was no water course in the land in question, hence a pucca water course should not be constructed. In consequence, the petitioner’s land was ordered to be taken away, two biswas each, without any compensation. The petitioner along with other agriculturists of Chak filed an application stating therein that there was no water course in the land in question, hence a pucca water course should not be constructed. But since the petitioner’s grievance was not redressed, he has called into question the impugned action on the part of the respondents, by preferring the instant petition, claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no water course was running through the land in question and the same was clear from the Jamabandi of Samwat Year 2072-2075 and also from the impugned report of the respondent no.2 wherein it was stated that the water course in Murabba no. 35 in kila no. 1, 10, 11, 20 and 21 is to be recorded in the revenue records; thus only on the basis of the Chak plan, the respondents wished to sanction a new water course. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the Executive Engineer concerned was bound to undertake the proceedings under Sections 21 to 28 of the Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1955 to set apart the petitioner’s land for water course, instead merely upon a report that was sought by Jagnandan Singh, the revenue entries were made. In furtherance, the respondent no.4 had no authority to pass orders for the revenue entries, and thus, the impugned action on part of the respondents is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that without any notice, two biswas each of the petitioner’s land was ordered to be taken away, and that too, without any compensation to the petitioner in lieu of the same. 3.3. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Jaspal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11844/2012, decided on 18.01.2013). 4. 3.3. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Jaspal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11844/2012, decided on 18.01.2013). 4. On behalf of the respondents, it was however, submitted that there was already an existing water course through the land of the petitioner, as reflected in the letter issued by respondent no.4 on 11.01.2023 and the mauka report dated 13.07.2022, and further, for the construction of an existing kutcha water course running through several farmers’ irrigated lands, there exists no provision for providing any compensation to the concerned farmers for the same. 4.1. It was further submitted that kutcha water courses were already existing and running and developed in the Chak plan; however, in the process of urbanization, these water courses are made pucca in order to minimize the loss of water, during transmission of water along the length of these water courses; thus it is for the benefit of the farmers themselves, and accordingly, they have to forgo a very small portion of land for construction of such water courses. 4.2. It was also submitted that many times, irrigation records do not match with the revenue records and whenever such discrepancies are found the concerned authorities take appropriate steps to correct the revenue records, as done in the present case. 4.3. It was further submitted that the provisions contained in Sections 21 to 28 of the Act of 1955 are applicable only when a new water course is sanctioned; however, in the present case, no new water course is being sanctioned, instead construction of a kutcha water course is being done to convert it into a pucca water course. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that vide the report of respondent no.2 sought by one Jagnandan Singh, a water course running through the land in question was to be recorded in the revenue records, and further, the respondent no.4 passed an order to make an entry of the water course in the revenue records. 7. 6. This Court observes that vide the report of respondent no.2 sought by one Jagnandan Singh, a water course running through the land in question was to be recorded in the revenue records, and further, the respondent no.4 passed an order to make an entry of the water course in the revenue records. 7. This Court further observes that though the revenue records do not match with the irrigation records, but as per the letter dated 11.01.2023 issued by respondent no.4 and the mauka report dated 13.07.2022, the water course was sanctioned in the aforementioned killas of Muraba no. 35 in Chak Plan and the same is in dilapidated state, and thus in need of construction. The said mauka report, as available on record, is reproduced as hereunder : ^^ekSdk fjiksVZ Jheku th pd 2 ,y ,u ih ¼6 Mh NksVh½ ds% 35 ds fdyk u% 1] 10] 11] 20] 21 esa ekSds ij iDdk [kkyk cuk gqvk gS ijUrq ttZj voLFkk esa gSA ,oa eq- u- 43 ds fdyk u% 1] 10] 11] 20] 21 esa cuk gqvk [kkyk iDdk gSA fjiksVZ lwpukFkZ izLrqr gSA** 8. This Court also observes that the aforementioned provisions of the Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1955 are not applicable in the present case, as no new water course is being sanctioned, instead an already existing water course is being reconstructed and being made into a pucca water course, and thus, the question of inviting objections or providing compensation for the same does not arise. 9. This Court further observes that every time such water courses are reconstructed and a portion of the farmers’ land is taken for the aforesaid construction, and thus, any payment as compensation for taking the land of the farmer(s) will be an unwarranted burden on the public exchequer. 10. The judgment cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioner also does not render any assistance to his case. 11. Thus, 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 petitioner in the present petition. 12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.