N. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under IX section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proredure for quashing the order dated 15. 2. 1992 passed by Sri C. S. Lal, Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Revision No. 4192, whereby and whereunder he set us aside the order dated 28. 12. 199 1 passed by the all S. D. M. Manjhaul in Case No. 202 (M) of 1991 pi converting the proceeding under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to that under section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 2 ) IT appears that dispute between the parties is over a Nala which passes through plot Nos. 1515 and 1516. It is alleged that refused water of the house of the petitioner is discharged through that Nala towards north but the same was blocked by the Opposite party No. 2. The petitioner reported the matter to the Anchal Adhikari who got the matter enquired into by Halka Karamchari and also made an enquiry by himself and found that Nala was existing there since long and re: fused water of the house of the petitioner was discharged through that Nala. He directed the Co-operative Officer to get the obstruction removed and Nalare-constructed. On the report submitted by the Anchal Adhikari, Cherla Bariarpur a proceeding under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was drawn up by the S. D. M. Manjhaul calling upon the parties to appear and show cause. In pursuance of the notice parties appeared and filed their show cause. The S. D. M. after perusing the show cause and hearing the counsel of both sides, converted the proceeding under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure into a proceeding under section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As against that the Opposite Party No. 2 preferred Cr. Revision before the Sessions Judge, Begusarai who set aside the order of the S. D. M. by the impugned order stating that the relief sought for in the Title suit was more comprehensive and that would cover the remedy available in the proceeding under section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As against that the petitioner has Came up before this Court for quashing the same. As against that the petitioner has Came up before this Court for quashing the same. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Sessions Judge has mis- conceived and mis-interpreted the facts of the case. The refused water in the Angan of the petitioner has created insanitation and that has posed a health hazard to the family members of the petitioner. There is eminent apprehension of breach of peace between the parties with regard to use of Nala. The title suit is in its infancy stage and is not likely to be decided very soon. He also placed reliance in a Full Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Abdul Wahab Khan v. Mohd. Hamid Ullah, wherein it has been held: a power to effectuate a certain object which the legislature has in view must be construed as implying the existence of all such ancillary powers as are necessary for carrying out the intention of the Legislature and effectuating the object in view. No doubt, under 5. 147 the jurisdiction of a Mag. is confined only to the passing of prohibitory orders which are generally in a negative form and he has no power to issue every kind of positive orders to secure the exercise of the right of user by one party. But in order to make a prohibitory order effective, the Magistrate has power to pass an order for the removal of an obstruction if without its removal the prohibitory order cannot be effectively enforced; In passing such orders the Magistrate must, however, bear in mind that their jurisdiction under 5. 147 is confined only to preventing breach of the peace and they are not expected to hold complicated enquiries as to title and try to adjust the same. Their orders are intended to be only of a temporary nature till the rights of the parties are finally determined by competent courts. ( 4 ) IN the present case, it is evident from the report of the Anchal Adhikari, Charla Barlarpur that the blocked of Nala has resulted in accumulation of refused water in the house of the petitioner. The Nala was old one and the refused water of the house of the petitioner was discharged through that Nala. The dispute between the parties, is, therefore, likely to cause apprehension of breach of peace. The Nala was old one and the refused water of the house of the petitioner was discharged through that Nala. The dispute between the parties, is, therefore, likely to cause apprehension of breach of peace. The magistrate was, therefore, perfectly well within the powers to initiate a proceeding under section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent apprehension of breach of peace. The pendency of Title suit is no bar to the initiation of proceeding under section 147 of the Code of criminal Procedure when a dispute is likely to cause apprehension of breach of peace regarding any alleged right of use of land and water. ( 5 ) THE impugned order thus suffers from serious legal infirmity and as such it cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is quashed and in the result, this application is allowed. Revision allowed. .