Orders under Sections 133 and 138(2) of Cr.P.C. are challengeable under Article 226 only if substantial evidence of jurisdictional errors or violation of fundamental rights is presented.

JUDGMENT :

P.M.Manoj, J.

The writ petition is preferred challenging Exts.P9 & P18 orders passed by the 3^rd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengannur, under the provisions of Sections 133 and 138(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short ' Cr.P.C .’). The question to be decided is whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against an order passed under Sections 133 and 138(2) Cr.P.C . The brief facts of the case are as follows.

2. Pursuant to a partition between the petitioner, the 9^th respondent, and the husband of the 10^th respondent, each received 9 cents of properties in re-survey No.388 and 388/3 of Chengannur Village, facing the Mavelikkara-Kozhencherry PWD road on the Northern side as a result of the partition suit as OS No.122/9 of Munsiff Court, Chengannur. It is contended that a natural water stream or channel has been in existence from time immemorial, commencing from the adjacent side of Metropolitan Nagar beneath the Puthenkavu-Perilassery road, and passing through various properties and finally reaching the southern side in Survey No.388/3 of Block No.8, where the properties of the 9^th respondent, the petitioner and the 10^th respondent exist. It is alleged that the said stream then turns along the western side of the 10th respondent’s property, crosses a culvert on the Mavelikkara-Kozhencherry PWD road at Puthenkavu junction and ultimately reaches the Pamba River.

-

3. Being very influential, the 10^th respondent, with the connivance of the 9^th respondent, who is a ward member of Chenagnnur Municipality, had allegedly encroached the natural water stream. Then filled it with ordinary earth along with 9 cents of land on the eastern side of the water channel and the western side of the water stream/channel of the other property and constructed a wall. The above-mentioned act of the 10^th respondent obstructed water flow from the higher area of the nearby locality towards the Pamba River. Against which the petitioner engaged in multiple levels of litigation and also preferred a representation before the 2^nd respondent. Thereafter, on the basis of the report submitted by the Village Officer as per Ext.P6, the 2^nd respondent directed the 3^rd respondent to take appropriate action as per Ext.P7. Despite Ext.P6 report and the specific directions in Ext.P7, the 3^rd respondent, allegedly in connivance with the 10^th and 11^th respondents, passed Ext.P9 whereby a direction was given to construct a new route for the water stream from the point at which it was blocked, to proceed along the western side of the property of the petitioner and eastern side of the property of the 10^th respondent.

-

4. According to the petitioner, there was a water channel as evident in Ext.P6, which was encroached and blocked by 10^th respondent and had unauthorisedly constructed a drain of one meter width on the northern side of the property and connected it to the old culvert. The petitioner submitted an objection as contemplated under the statutory provision. In the meanwhile, the 7^th respondent issued a stop memo against the construction activity until the boundaries are finalised on the basis of a complaint received by the 3^rd respondent. Even that was replied by the petitioner stating that the four boundaries are fixed by Ext.P1 order of the Munsiff Court. Even thereafter, the 7^th respondent refixed the sketch, superseding Ext.P1 final decree executed by EP No.20/2014 vide order dated 21.06.2013 in I.A. No.1719/2010 in OS No.122/2009of Munsiff Court, Chengannur. The said act of the 7^th respondent was also alleged to be in connivance with the 10^th respondent. Thereafter the 7^th respondent issued letter dated 14.07.2016, which was also replied by the petitioner. Then the petitioner preferred a representation to the 3^rd respondent, vide letter dated 27.05.2016, which was not acted upon.

5. In the meanwhile, the 12^th respondent approached this Court by preferring Crl.M.C. No.2647/2017 for the implementation of Ext.P9. Vide