NARAYAN PRADHAN Vs. NAKUL PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISPUTE between two villagers relating to closure of a water channel is subject matter of this revision.

(2.) BHATAPADA is a hamlet of village Rahadamal. There are agricultural lands in both the villages. On 18 -12 -1986, Tahasildar Sadar, Puri addressed a letter to Sub -divisional Officer that on receipt of report about apprehended trouble concerning earthen embankment put on Government land he along with Revenue Inspector of Balikerapachhipal and Rsvenue Supervisor Chandinpur visited villages Rahadamal and Bhitapada. on 15 -12 -1986. This earthen embankment was raised by villagers of Bhatpada since 15 to 20 days before that date as a result of which excess water could not be discharged and has spread over the paddy fields over an area of 400 acres. On that account paddy crop over those lands could not be harvested. Although he called villagers of Rahadamal to ascertain the position, they did not appear on account of absence of their leader. Tahasildir went to the village and called gentlemen, in course of discussion with them, they said that they had strengthened the existing embankment. From the village map, Tahasiidar found that there was no embankment. In the report, it was stated by Tahasildar 'The villagers said that there are other channels for discharge of excess water of the village Bhatpada and this is not the channel where excess water of the village shall pass. They further said that if the embankment shall be cut, the water will submerge their' paddy land'. The report was received by Sub -divisional Officer on the same day but no action seems to have been taken on it. On 20 -12 -1986, villagers of Rahadamal tiled an application before Collector requesting for deputing police force to cut the embankment put by villagers' of Bhatapada which was forwarded by Collector to Sub -divisional Magistrate on the same day. No action seems to have been taken on the said application. On 23 -12 -1986, villagers'.of Rahadamai filed an application before Sub - divisional Magistrate for initiation of proceeding Under Section 133, Cr. P. C. against villagers of Bhatpada' and filed another petition for injunction against them directing removal of the embankment. On ' -'receipt of this petition, a proceeding was registered and on the same day learned Sub - divisional Magistrate passed the following order.

(3.) EXERCISE of power Under Section 133, Cr. P C. is meant for maintenance of public order and tranquillity, if the requirement of that provision is satisfied. So far as relevant it reads as follows: