ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the order dated 06.03.2020 (Annexure-4) passed by the Executive Engineer as well as the order dated 10.02.2021 (Annexure7) passed by the Superintending Engineer may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside. B. 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. With the joint consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard today itself. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioners are the agriculturists having there agriculture land in Murabba No.18 in Chak 34 B.B., Tehsil Padampur, but the same is shown for irrigation purpose in Chak 36 B.B. in the agriculture land of the petitioners situated at Murabba No.18, stone No.185/232, there is a water course running from Kila No.1 to 5 and 5 to 25. There is no sanctioned water course in Kila No.1, 10, 11, 20 and 21, as the same is not shown in the Jamabandi. 4. An application came to be filed before the Executive Engineer by few of the villagers (private respondents) in the year 2013, asking for attestation of the water course. The file was transferred to the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, South Division in the year 2017. The petitioner Darshan Singh filed detailed objections before the authority, stating that there is no water course in Kila No.1 to 21 and further, if at all, any action is required, the same can be taken by adhering to the provisions of Section 21 to 28 of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1954’). Thereafter, on 06.03.2020 (Annexure-4), without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the order for sanctioning a new water course in Kila No.1 to 21 and Murabba No.18, stone No.185/232 and Murabba No.31, stone No.185/233 was passed by the Executive Engineer, the petitioners preferred an appeal against the said order before the Superintending Engineer and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2021 (Annexure-7). 5. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 6. 5. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the orders impugned dated 06.03.2020 (Annexure4) passed by the Executive Engineer and the order dated 10.02.2021 (Annexure-7) passed by the Superintending Engineer, are not sustainable, as a new water course has been sanctioned in the petitioners’ field and the procedure as laid down under Sections 21 to 28 of the Act of 1954, has not been followed by the respondents. He further submits that if at all, a new water course has to be sanctioned, then, the land has to be set apart in light of the provisions as laid down under the Act of 1954. 7. He also submits that the order passed by the Executive Engineer dated 06.03.2020 (Annexure-4), is a non-speaking and an unreasoned order, as no reasons have been assigned for sanctioning the new water course and no technical report was taken into consideration. He also submits that the respondents without making any survey of the factual position, went ahead to pass the impugned orders merely relying upon old Jamabnandi. 8. He also submits that both the authorities below have failed to appreciate that there was no existing water course in the petitioners’ field and have failed to consider the entire record wherein, thee is no such water course reflected in the Jamabandi produced by the petitioner in Kila No.1 to 21 of Murabba No.18 and 31. 9. He also submits that the irrigation records do not match with the revenue records and thus, the respondent authorities could not have proceeded based on the irrigation records only as the revenue record available with the petitioners, does not indicate that the water course was already existing on the land in dispute. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, urges, that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders dated 06.03.2020 (Annexure-4) and 10.02.2021 (Annexure-7), deserve to be quashed and set aside. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, urges, that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders dated 06.03.2020 (Annexure-4) and 10.02.2021 (Annexure-7), deserve to be quashed and set aside. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent state and private respondent, jointly submit that the orders dated 06.03.2020 (Annexure-4) and 10.02.2021 (Annexure-7), have been passed after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the decision is based on findings of the technical experts and the technical reports which cannot be said to be faulty and thus, this Court may not invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents jointly submit that a notice was duly issued to the parties to the dispute and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties, the respondent No.3-Executive Engineer, Water Resources South Division, Sri Ganganagar, passed an order dated 06.03.2020, while categorically mentioning in it that upon perusal of the record available, it has been ascertained that in Murabba No.18, stone No.185/232 and Murabba No.31, stone No.185/233, Kila No.1, 10, 11, 20 and 21, the water course is existing, which is evident from the revenue record from the year 1938 to 1942 and thereafter, proceeded to grant sanction for the water recourse alongwith the requisite corrections in the record. 13. Learned Counsel for the respondent jointly submit that the petitioners have distorted the fact that the authorities have sanctioned a new water course upon the land of the petitioner but upon a detailed enquiry of the site in question as well as the material available on record, it was found that the water course was already available at the site in question. 14. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the respondents jointly place reliance upon the order dated 19.08.2016 passed by this Court in Civil Writ (CW) No.5059/2010 (Hakam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and the judgment dated 16.08.2023 passed by this Court in SBCWP No.8111/2023 (Manjeet Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). They, thus, urge, that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 16. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and the judgment dated 16.08.2023 passed by this Court in SBCWP No.8111/2023 (Manjeet Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). They, thus, urge, that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 16. This Court finds that upon a bare look at the impugned orders dated 06.03.2020 (Annexure-4) and 10.02.2021 (Annexure-7), reflect that the same have been passed after taking into consideration the technical aspects of the matter and the report of the concerned authorities dated 26.02.2020 placed on record as Annexure-R/4. In the said report dated 26.02.2020, the Assistant Engineer has categorically mentioned that upon inspection of the site in question, the water course is existing on the said land. The said report is reproduced hereunder:- “XXXX XXXX mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd vki n~okjk pkgs vuqlkj ekSdk fujh{k.k fd;k x;k ekSds ij pd 36 ch-ch- ds iqjkuh tekcanh vuqlkj eqjCck u-31 iRFkj u-185@233 rFkk eqjCck u-18 iRFkj u-185@232 ds fdyk u-1] 10] 11] 20] 21 es jdck dVk gqvk gSA ;g ekSdk ij Hkh [kkyk eqjCck u-31 o 18 ds fdyk u-1] 10] 11] 20] 21 esa py jgk gSA eqjCck u-31 dk CCA 24.10 gS vkSj eqjCck u-18 dk CCA 24.8 gSA ,oa NSd 36 ch-ch- ds eqjCck uks-31 iRFkj uks-185@237 dk d 14-14 ftles vkcknh gSA o eqjCck ua-46 dk CCA 24.10 gSA ftlesa iDdh lM+d gS tks ekSds ij py jgh gSA okLrs fjiksVZ vfxze ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq çLrqr gSaA** Thus, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, that all the Jamabandi taken on record are subsequent to the passing of the impugned orders dated 06.03.2020 (Annexure-4) and 10.02.2021 (Annexure-7) and thus it cannot be said that the water course existing prior to it, is not sustainable as the Assistant Engineer has given a categorical finding based on the site inspection as well as the records available before it that with the water course is existing on the land in question. 17. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have failed to invoke Sections 21 to 28 of the Act of 1954, is found to be not applicable in the present case as the same is applicable only in the case whether a new water course has to be sanctioned. 17. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have failed to invoke Sections 21 to 28 of the Act of 1954, is found to be not applicable in the present case as the same is applicable only in the case whether a new water course has to be sanctioned. However, in the present case, upon ascertaining that the water course was already existing on the land in question, the respondents have taken conscious decision to make the appropriate corrections in the record and sanction the already existing water course. 18. This Court also observes that a Coordinate Bench in its judgment dated 16.08.2023, had observed as under:- “6. This Court observes that vide the report of respondent no.2sought 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 anentry 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 ua-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 çLrqr 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. 9. This Court further observes that every time such watercourses 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.” 19. This Court finds that in the present case, the authorities after examining the complete record and inspecting the site in question, arrived at a satisfaction that there was a discrepancy in the records which were required to be corrected, as the water course had already existed on the land in question and thus, this Court cannot sit as an appellate Court over the conclusions arrived at after due consideration of the material available with the respondent authorities and the site inspection as well and this fact cannot also be ignored that after due consideration of the facts and records available with the two authorities having expertise in the field, the petitioners’ applications were rejected. 20. As a consequence, the instant writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed as such. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.