1. The complaint of the respondent, a lower riparian owner was that the petitioner, a higher riparian owner, had, by putting up a masonry dam across the river, cut off the flow of water and deprived his lands of the water they had a right to enjoy. This interference with the rights of the respondent and other lower riparian owners was the basis of the learned Magistrate's conditional order under S.133 of the Criminal Procedure Code requiring the petitioner to remove the bund or to show cause against the removal, as of his order under S.137 (3) making the conditional order absolute. It seems to me obvious that this dispute does not come within Chapter X of the Code and that the learned Magistrate acted altogether without jurisdiction. S.133, (in so far as is relevant for the present purpose) empowers a magistrate to take action thereunder when he considers "that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public," and, as pointed out in In re Mahar ana Shri Jaswatsangji (ILR. XXII Bombay 988 at page 993), these words "imply not only that the river or channel must be one of public use, but t