JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a revision petition against a final order u/s 147 Code Criminal Procedure passed by a First Class Magistrate of Jajpur. The Petitioner who was the first party in the proceeding before the learned Magistrate was, at the time of the institution of that proceeding, the Zamindar of touzi No. 3872 in which there is a 'nullah' recorded in plot No. 995. It was recorded as Anabadi Jalasaya land. The Petitioner constructed a bridge over the said nullah for the convenience of the public which was undoubtedly a laudable act. But it was alleged that after constructing the bridge he fixed up some planks in the span below thereby obstructing the free flow of water further down. According to the Petitioner the planks were rut for the purpose of catching fish from the nullath and also for irrigating his lands on either side of the nullah by raising the level of the water. The opposite party who were the second party however alleged that in consequence of the fixing up of the planks in the span below the bridge their lands on either side of the nullah were submerged and the free flow of water In the nullah had been obstructed. There was first a proceeding u/s 144 Code Criminal Procedure which was subsequently converted into a proceeding u/s 147 Code Criminal Procedure The main grievance of the opposite party in that proceeding was that the free flow of water in the nullah has been obstructed and that obstruction should be removed. They did not claim any right of use of the water from the nullah for the purpose of irrigation, nor did they allege that right (if any such right existed) was interfered with by the Petitioner in any way. Doubtless, there were some allegations about damage to their lands by, the rising of the water level. 2. In my opinion, the entire proceeding is misconceived. The second party have not slated that their right to the use of the water in the nullah has been in any way interfered with. Their grievance on the other hand Is only that the free flow of water has been obstructed and also that their fields have been inundated by the raising of the water level. So Ear as inundation is concerned, they have got a remedy in the civil court by way of damages. Their grievance on the other hand Is only that the free flow of water has been obstructed and also that their fields have been inundated by the raising of the water level. So Ear as inundation is concerned, they have got a remedy in the civil court by way of damages. So far as obstruction to the free flow water is concerned the proper proceeding would be one u/s 133 Code Criminal Procedure if the nullah in question can be said to be lawfully used by the public. The question of removal of obstruction would arise only if, after drawing up a regular proceeding u/s 133 Code Criminal Procedure the Magistrate is satisfied that the public have a right of use Over the nullah and that a right has been obstructed by the action of the Petitioner. A proceeding u/s 147, Code Criminal Procedure should not have been initiated at all. 3. I would therefore allow this revision, set aside the order of the Magistrate dated 25-9-1957 and leave it to the Magistrate to take appropriate action under the Code of Criminal Procedure if the necessity for the same arises again. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed