Judgment :- Petition to quash Annexure E Order dated 10-6-1991 issued by the Sub. Divisional Magistrate of Perinthalmanna under S.142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant portion of the order reads:-It has been made to appear to me that the nuisance mentioned in the said order is attended with such imminent danger or injury of a serious kind to the public as to render necessary immediate measures to prevent such danger or injury. I do hereby under the provision of S.142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, direct and enjoin you to remove the obstruction to free flow of water passing through survey Nos, 88/5,87/2 and 88/6B of Perinthalmanna amsom in Perinthalmanna village within 24 hours pending the result of the inquiry". 2. The earlier order referred 10 in the above order is annexure- b dated 17-8-1990 passed under S.133(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order reads to the effect: do hereby direct and require you the counter petitioner to remove the obstruct ion within seven days of receipt of this order or to appear before me in the court at Perinthalmanna on 29-8-1990. at 10.30 a.m. and show cause why the order should not enforced". 3. The petitioner's property is lying in a lower level when compared to the properties on the northern side of it. From Pattambi road on the north a road leads to the municipal lane which is lying east to west. Just at the beginning of the municipal lane on the eastern side there is a private lane running towards south. On both sides of this lane are properties and buildings inhibited by the complainants in this case. The lane leads to the property of the petitioner and ends there. The complaint by the northern property owners is that the petitioner obstructed the natural flow of water from the north to south along the northern boundary of the petitioner's property towards the west and from there along the western boundary towards south to the paddy fields and then a thodu on the southern side of the paddy fields. The complaint by the northern property owners is that the petitioner obstructed the natural flow of water from the north to south along the northern boundary of the petitioner's property towards the west and from there along the western boundary towards south to the paddy fields and then a thodu on the southern side of the paddy fields. It is the case of the complainants that along the property of the petitioner there was a defined channel to drain water collecting on the lane to the paddy fields and the thodu and the petitioner caused obstruction to the free flow of water thereby flooding the complainant's properties and their wells causing serious health hazards and injury to the properties. 4. The Sub Divisional Magistrate asked the Tahsildar to make an enquiry and file a report and the report together with the file was placed before me for perusal by the learned Public Prosecutor. In that report, it is categorically stated that the petitioner's property is lying at a lower level, that the storm water collected and passing through the private lane is to flow along the defined channel through the northern and western boundary of the petitioner's property towards the paddy fields and then to the thodu on the south of the paddy fields. It is the further report of the Tahsildar that the drainage and the defined channel was there for the past 60 or more years and the petitioner had caused obstruction by putting up a bund and also by filling the channel. 5. There is also the report of the Sub Inspector of Police which was occasioned by the complaints of the northern property holders regarding the obstruction of the drainage of water collected on the surface of the private lane thereby causing nuisance to the owners of the property on both east and west of the lane. 5. There is also the report of the Sub Inspector of Police which was occasioned by the complaints of the northern property holders regarding the obstruction of the drainage of water collected on the surface of the private lane thereby causing nuisance to the owners of the property on both east and west of the lane. That report also would show that the northern properties are on higher level and the petitioner's property is on a lower level, that the rain water and the water coming from the northern road is to flow towards south to the lower level along the private lane and from the private lane along the defined channel in the petitioner's property and that channel has been filled up and obstruction put by the petitioner at the mouth of his properly and as a result of that the water is being flooded on the lane and also in to the northern properties causing public nuisance and danger to health. 6. It is in this background that' Divisional Magistrate has passed the impugned order under S.133(1) (a) on 17-81990 and the Annexure E Order under S IP Cr. P.C 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner has a common law right to protect his property from being flooded by surface water (lowing into his property and it is only in exercise of that right that he put up the bund and obstructed the water from entering into his property so that his property is not flooded and the wells damaged causing damage to the property and injury to health. This argument at the first blush may appear to be attractive but the common law right claimed by the learned counsel is subject to similar rights customary as well as easement right or quasi-easement right of the adjacent property owners (being the north property owners). 8. Every property owner has a natural right of drainage of surface water h) the property lying at a lower level. The owner of land has the natural right not only to collect and retain within the limits of his own land surface water not flowing in a defined channel, but also a right to draw it off on to his neighbours' lower land or put it to whatever use he pleases. 9. The owner of land has the natural right not only to collect and retain within the limits of his own land surface water not flowing in a defined channel, but also a right to draw it off on to his neighbours' lower land or put it to whatever use he pleases. 9. This principle applies to rain or flood waters naturally accumulating on land of higher level which must find its level by draining into the lower land. This is a natural right independent of an easement grant or custom. 10. This right of an owner of a land lying on a higher level could be an easement or quasi easement right as well. Easement of drainage is the right of the owner of one land to cause the water on his land to flow in defined channel on the land of his neighbour. This is also a natural right of the owner of the higher land that the water rising in or falling on his own land, shall be allowed by his neighbour owning the lower land to run naturally thereto. The natural right mentioned above is not restricted to natural drainage of water from higher to lower land but includes discharge of it through a particular route at a specified point. This natural right is a right which can be claimed in respect of water naturally rising in, or falling on, one's land and not passing in defined channels. The right of an upper proprietor to throw natural water on the lower land is a natural right inherent in property. The lower riparian proprietor has no right to prevent such natural flow or to throw the flow back on to the upper riparian property. 11. Here, what happens is water flowing from the Perinthalmanna - Pattambi road flows towards south and then it takes a turn towards west and from there it naturally flows towards the private lane leading to the property of the petitioner. As stated earlier, on the east and west of the private lane there are properties owned by the complainants which are lying on higher level than the property of the petitioner. As stated earlier, on the east and west of the private lane there are properties owned by the complainants which are lying on higher level than the property of the petitioner. From the materials available it could be seen that for the past 60 years or so, this water was flowing into the property of the petitioner and was flowing through a defined channel towards the southern paddy fields and from there to the thodu on the southern side of the paddy fields. It was to this natural flow of water that the petitioner put up obstruction thereby flooding the pathway and the properties of the complainants. Under S.133(1)(a) as well as under S.142 it is the duty of the Sub Divisional Magistrate to prevent that nuisance which abrogates the public right of the property owners on the northern side. What the Sub Divisional Magistrate has done is only in exercise of that power which is fully justified in the circumstances of the case. There is no reason at all to interfere with that order and that order has to be enforced. In the circumstances, the petition is devoid of merits and hence dismissed.