JUDGMENT D.D. Seth, J. - This reference has been made by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, and arises out of the following circumstances. 2. The Patwari of the place in dispute filed a report before the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Okhimath, that the applicant had constructed a house-on Rudraprayag-Mohankhal road at a distance of 16 feets from the centre of the road without the permission of the State Government or of the District Magistrate. It was alleged by the Patwari that the house built by the applicant was on a land belonging to Public Works Department and thus amounted to an encroachment on Government property. The Patwari requested the learned Magistrate to take proceedings under/S. 133, CrPC, against the applicants. 3. On February 8, 1967 the learned Magistrate ordered a notice to issue to the applicant under section 133, CrPC, and fixed March 4, 1967 for the appearance of the applicant. On that date the applicant appeared and filed a written statement contesting the proceedings. The learned Magistrate took evidence and held that the applicant had constructed his house on a land after it had been acquired by the State for the construction of the road. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, of the opinion that the construction of the house by the applicant was dangerous for free flow of he any vehicular traffic and passed an order on April 30, 1968 ordering the applicant to remove the said obstruction within 24 hours from the date of the order. Against the order of the learned Magistrate the applicant preferred a revision out of which this reference has arisen. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant in support of the reference and Sri Roop Kishore Srivastava learned brief holder for the State. The learned counsel for the applicant, inter alia, submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was illegal as the learned Magistrate had not followed the procedure laid down in S. 13 9 A, CrPC, and further that the learned Magistrate wrongly initiated proceedings under/S. 133, CrPC, which was not applicable to the facts of the case. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant has force. 6. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant has force. 6. S. 133, CrPC, deals with removal of public nuisance where unlawful obstruction or nuisance has been made in any way, river or channel which is and which may be lawfully used by the public or on any public place. S. 133, CrPC, is not meant for removal of an encroachment over a land belonging to the State which is covered by the UP Roadside Land Control Act. In the instant case the report of the Patwari, which was the basis of the proceedings under/S. 133, CrPC, clearly shows that by building the house on Rudraptayag-Mohankhal road the applicant had not encroached on the road and had not obstructed the flow of passage. Moreover, the learned Magistrate had not followed the correct procedure as he did not issue any conditional order as required by S. 133, CrPC, asking the applicant to appear before the court and to show cause why the conditional order should not be made absolute. Further, the learned Magistrate was bound to follow the procedure laid don in S. 139.A, CrPC, when the applicant appeared before him after notice under/S 133,. CrPC, had been served upon him. The learned Magistrate was bound to ask the applicant whether he denied the existence of any public right in respect of the land in dispute. No such procedure was followed by the learned Magistrate. The failure of the learned Magistrate to question the applicant under/S. 139-A, CrPC, rendered the entire proceedings illegal. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I accept this reference and quash the order of the learned Magistrate dated April 30, 1968 and direct the proceedings under section 133, CrPC, to be dropped as recommended by the referring court.