JUDGMENT 1. - The facts of this petition are that respondents Harishchandra Mehta and others made an application on 20.7.1969 to the Gram Panchayat, Khimel, that since the fitting of water pipes, the residents of Muthaji-ki-pol have increased the consumption of water and are discharging filthy water in large measure which collects in front of their house and has created nuisance, that residents may be directed to construct soak pits the petitioners Pukhraj and others in reply to the notice issued by the Panchayat contended that the discharge of water from their houses passes by the same passege since times immemorial. Harishchandra and others have raised a wall of soil thereby disallowing the water to pass & causing mud. The members of the panchayat thereupon went on the site date on August 3, 1969 and noted that one such wall was raised by Pukhrajji and Sheshmalji Sons of Dhulaji, at other was raised in front of the house of Dhanraj s/o Umaid Mal, 3rd one' was outside the house of Pukhraj s/o Dhulaji and the 4th one was in front of the house of Pukhraj s/o Magnaji. These walls were found to have been raised by Harishchandra s/o Bagtawar Chand. By the raising of these barriers water has started collecting in the Gali, even approaches to the houses have become difficult. Mosquitoes have appeared Danger is also there to the walls of the adjoining houses. Panchayat therefore, directed that the aforesaid walls should be removed by Harijans of the Panchayat and Harishchardra and others be directed not to raise such walls in future. Again on 5.7.70, the Panchayat took a decision that it was not possible to construct soak pits and the water should be allowed as usual to pass through the house of Harshchands etc. They were directed to remove the wall and refrain from raising any obstruction in future. 2. When appeal was filed in the Patchayat Samiti, it by its order on 29-12-1970 cancelled the order of the Panchayat because it found that rain water alone used to pass through the house of' the appellants Harishchandra and Pukhraj and the filthy discharge increased on account of water supply cannot be directed to pass through their houses. The Panchayat should acquire the land if it desires that the filthy water should pass through the houses of Harishchandra and others. 3. The Panchayat should acquire the land if it desires that the filthy water should pass through the houses of Harishchandra and others. 3. The petitioners thereupon filed a revision before the Collector, Pali. The Additional Collector who decided the appeal found that the appeal was heard by the Panchayat Samiti without notice to the respondents. But he held that since the introduction of the water supply, the discharge of water has increased and water has begun to be collected in the pol. The respondents could not allow such water to pass through their land. He also disagreed with the decision of the village Panchayat and directed that the aggrieved persons should construct soak pits as the village Panchayat cannot create drains upon personal property of others. This order of the Additional Collector is dated 29-7-72. 4. Aggrieved by this order the present petition has been filed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Additional Collector, Pali, has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in not setting aside the order of the Panchayat Samiti dated 29-12-70 which order the Panchayat Samiti passed in contravention of principles of natural justice. The petitioners pray that the orders of the Additional Collector and Panchayat Samiti be quashed and the Panchayat Samiti be directed to hear the appeal after giving notice to the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also invited my attention to sub-section (1) of section 24 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1963 and the third schedule thereto. According to this provision, it is the duty of the Panchayat so far as the Panchayat funds at its disposal will allow, to make reasonable provision within panchayat circle in regard to the construction, maintenance and repairs of public streets, drains, bunds and bridges. According to section 26, a Panchayat has power to do all acts necessary and incidental to execution of its duties and in particular by notice in writing, to require the owner or occupier of any building to remove any encroachment on a public. "Way or drain. It is contended that it is both a duty and a power of the Panchayat to maintain drains and remove any encroachment upon such drains. "Way or drain. It is contended that it is both a duty and a power of the Panchayat to maintain drains and remove any encroachment upon such drains. The Panchayat was therefore justified in directing the respondents to remove the obstructions created on the age old drain passing over the land of the respondents and the Panchayat Samiti and the Additional Collector were not justified in reversing the order of the Panchayat and in further directing construction of soak pits. 6. As far as the order of the Panchayat Samiti is concerned, the Additional Collector did find that it was made without notice to the petitioners. At the same time the Additional Collector was of the view that the Gram Panchayat had no right to construct or allow drains to pass over a private property but in order that the nuisance spreading in the pol may be removed, be directed the construction of soak pits. It appears to me that all the authorities below have taken a view that the land over which the petitioners want their filthy water to pass, belongs to the respondents and further that the petitioners can only claim discharge of rain water through the houses of the respondents but not of filthy water collecting on account of increased water supply. It was therefore clearly a case not of a public drain as envisaged in the Panchayat Act, but it is a case of easementary rights of the petitioners and therefore, fell outside the jurisdiction of the Panchayat. The Additional Collector has committed no error of jurisdiction or any error of law apparent on the face of the record. If the order of the Panchayat Samiti suffers from any defect of violation of principles of natural justice, the order of the Additional Collector does not. He was within his power to either remand the case to the Panchayat Samiti or decide the case himself, which he has done. It is not a case at all fit for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 7. I, therefore, see no force in this petition and it is hereby dismissed. No costs.Writ dismissed. *******