V.MUTHUSAMY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has focussed the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 30.10.2012 in C.C. No. 238 of 2012 passed by the Second Respondent. The Second Respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District, while passing the impugned conditional order dated 30.12.2012, under Section 133 for removal of nuisance had interalia opined that on enquiry, it came to be known that Kurukkankulam tank belongs to Panchayat Union measuring an extent of 5.46.5 Hectare and for this tank, the rain water comes from the Nambiayan Parambu mountain place and from the adjoining lands belonging to the Petitioner in S. Nos. 541, 542, 543/1 and also belonging to Boomithan Board land in S. No. 543/2 Punja Lands and to an extent of 7 Hectares of lands were getting irrigated from this water and there is a channel and sewage for the tank irrigation and for irrigation of lands, the saving of water is essential and that the Complainant has closed the way of the water passing through and also diverted the passage of the water and consequently, his act will cause harm to other Agriculturists and hence, it has been treated as a public nuisance and since that nuisance is stilt there, it has to be removed as one of the necessity and directed the Revision Petitioner/Complainant to remove the said nuisance within seven days and also he has been further directed not to create obstacles once again in this regard.

(2.) Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Second Respondent in C.C. No. 238 of 2012 dated 30.10.2012, in regard to the removal of public nuisance in issue, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant urges before this Court that the Second Respondent has not conducted the mandatory enquiry envisaged under Section 134 to 137 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) Yet another contention put forward on the side of the Revision Petitioner is that the impugned conditional order passed by the Second Respondent dated 30.10.2012 is not valid in law because of that a conditional order cannot be passed in a proceeding under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. in a private land and that section is applicable only to public place or channel way etc.