This is application under section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 12, 4. 83 of the Sessions Judge Cachar passed in CM 7 (2) of 1983 and the order dated 7.4.83 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Executive), Karimganj under section 133, Cr.P.C. in Case No. 150 of 1982. 2. Facts,-The land of the petitioner Arfan Ali is contiguous to that of the opposite parties and both the lands being or lying low they used to be under water. Subsequently, the petitioner Arfan Ali developed his land to make it fit for cultivation by raising the level of land. As a result of it, land of the opposite parties has been under water. On these facts and circumstances of the case, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate exercising his powers under section 133, Cr.P.C. directed the petitioner provide a "Nalla" of 3 ft width and 2 ft depth to draw out the water from the land of the opposite parties. Against that order the present petitioner filed revision petition, CM 7 (2) of 1983. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the petition. Hence, this petition. 3. The learned Sessions Judge without considering the scope of the provisions under section 133, Cr.P.C. rejected the petition on the ground that the order of Magistrate is reasonable and it cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the petitioner. 4. Conditions for the application of section 133, Cr.P.C. areas follows. Before taking action under section 133, the Magistrate must satisfy himself that it is a public nuisance or obstruction affecting injuriously a number of persons. Section 133 does not relate to a private dispute for which a proper forum is the civil Court. Therefore, the Magistrate is to act purely in the interest of the public and should not use the power under section 133, Cr.P.C. as a substitute for civil litigation and to settle the private dispute. Turning to the present case, the dispute is purely private dispute between the first party on the one hand and the second patties on the other. Therefore, the petition under section 133 are not attracted. This aspect of the matter has not been discussed by the learned Magistrate. 5. Next question which arises for consideration is whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under section 482, Cr.P.C. in the present case. Therefore, the petition under section 133 are not attracted. This aspect of the matter has not been discussed by the learned Magistrate. 5. Next question which arises for consideration is whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under section 482, Cr.P.C. in the present case. As already stated, the learned Sessions Judge, without considering the scope of the provisions under section 133 rejected the revision petition. The Courts below have committed manifest error causing thereby injustice to the petitioner. In such a circumstance, I am of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482, Cr.P.C. is exercised. I do so accordingly. 6. ln the result, the petition is allowed and order dated 7. 4. 83 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Executive Karimganj in Case No 150 of 1982 and the order dated 12.4.83 passed by the Sessions Judge, Cachar in C. M. No. 7 (2) of 1983 are quashed. The petition is disposed of.