D.P.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition can be disposed of on a very short point. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are holing agricultural, land in chak No. 3FD Tehsil Raisinghnagar and all the landholders in the are getting water for irrigation purposes from FD minor (out let) which comes under the Gang Canal North Division, Irrigation Scheme. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Gang Canal North Division, Sriganganagar, after hearing the concerned parties passed an order on 'March 14, 1975' sanctioning 'gili -sukhi -nakewar -barabandi' in chak 3FD. Against this order, Balwantsingh and Bootasingh respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, Bikaner, Irrigation Circle, Sriganagar. The afore said officer, without giving any notice to the petitioner and other land -owners of the area, passed and order on April 11, 1975 and sanctioned 'gili -sukhi -Khatewar -barabandi' in the afore said chak from April 15, 1975 (Kharif 1975).
(2.) THE petitioner's case is that the Superintending Engineer had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the order of the Executive Engineer against the fundamental principles of natural justice in deciding the appeal without giving any notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, while setting aside the order of the Executive Engineer, which was passed after hearing all the parties concerned. As for the first submission, the respondents have placed on record the fact that the provisions of Rule 11(4) of the Rajasthan Irrigation Drainage Rules 1957 have been amended and an appeal lies against the order of the Divisional Irrigation Officer under Rule 55(b) An original order passed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer under the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954, or the rules made thereunder can be appealed to before the Superintending Irrigation Officer, namely, the Superintending Engineer of the concerned area. Thus, in view of the amended provisions of Rule 11(4) read with Rule 55(b), the appeal filed by respondents Nos. 4 and 5 before the Superintending Engineer was competent.
(3.) HOWEVER , it is not in dispute that the Superintending Engineer in the present case has decided the appeal without giving notice to the petitioner and other land -owner of the area and without affording any other person an opportunity of hearing except the appellants before him. The procedure followed by the Superintending Engineer is grossly unjust and is in derogation of the fundamental principles of natural justice and the order passed by him must be set aside as it is against all canons of justice and fair play. The order passed by the Superintending Engineer on April 11, 1975, is therefore set aside.;