Jurisdiction under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is confined to public ways, not private land disputes.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29350 of 2008(R)

-------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------

SABU.K.ABEL, KATTANGANAL, KUROOR KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK.

BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.S.SHYAM RESPONDENT(S): -----------------------------

1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, N.H.(R),SECTION, KOTHAMANGALAM.

2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MOOVATTUPUZHA.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

V.GIRI, J.

------------------------- -------------------------

Dated this the 15^th day of October, 2008.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of 31.250 cents of land comprised in Survey No.1257/7/22, situated on the south of NH 49 at Kothamangalam. Apparently, the 1^st respondent filed Ext.P1 complaint before the 2^nd respondent alleging that the petitioner has unauthorisedly filled his land and this caused obstruction to the free flow of water. The Revenue Divisional Officer - 2^nd respondent initiated proceedings thereon. The petitioner submits that he had reclaimed his land about 35 years ago and the petitioner has put up a commercial building in a part of his property, after obtaining Ext.P2 permit from the local authority, which was, in turn, preceded by a No Objection Certificate from the 1^st respondent Assistant Engineer. The petitioner refers to an earlier dispute involving his father and the neighbouring property owner regarding the filling up of the old water channel and the same was decided by the 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P4. The present writ petition is filed in the wake of Ext.P5 notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer requiring the petitioner to again appear before him. The petitioner has filed Ext.P6 detailed objections before the 2^nd respondent. The proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer is challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.N.Sukumaran and the learned Government Pleader.

3. It is contended that the proceedings initiated by the Revenue Divisional Officer is without jurisdiction. That, if at all the Revenue Divisional Officer has jurisdiction, it can only be under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that could only be relatable to obstruction to a public way or public water way, as such. The powers of the Revenue Divisional Officer in this behalf will not extend to the private property of an individual.

4. Learned Government Pleader submits that Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the order on the basis of the complaint made by the 1^st respondent. The flow of water among the neighbouring public properties is affected by certain activities carried out by the petitioner.

Having heard counsel both sides, I am of the view that the Revenue Divisional Officer should first consider the petitioner's objections and pass an order dealing with his objections. Since the jurisdiction of the 2^nd respondent is also questioned, the orders to be so passed shall consider the question of jurisdiction of the 2^nd respondent also. Such orders shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.

Sd/-

(V.GIRI)

JUDGE sk/

//true copy// P.S. To Judge