Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) is directed against the Order dated 22.02.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, district Jalore (for short, “the Revisional Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 14/2004, whereby the appeal filed by non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 against the order dated 25.09.2004 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sanchore (for short, “the Executive Court” hereinafter ) on an application filed by the petitioner under Section 133 of the Code, has been set-aside. Aggrieved by the order impugned of the Revision Court, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant revision petition, in brief , are that a complaint was filed by the petitioner under Section 133 of the Code before the Executive Court on 10.12.2002 to the effect that non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 obstructed the public way in Khasra No. 1183/1213 measuring 0.5 hectors. Before the Executive Court, the non-petitioners No.2 to 4 contested the application, inter alia, on the ground that the way in question is not a public way and, therefore, the proceedings under Section 133 of the Code was not maintainable. The Executive Magistrate, vide order dated 15.09.2004, directed to remove the obstruction raised by non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 by installing an iron gate. That order came to be challenged by the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court, on examining the record of the Executive Court, came to the conclusion that the way in dispute is not a public way and it has been claimed by the petitioner alone and no general public is in use of the alleged way and, therefore, the proceeding under Section 133 of the Code is not maintainable. On this ground, the Revisional Court set-aside the order dated 15.09.2004 passed by the Executive Court. Section 133 of the Code reads as under:- “Conditional order for removal of nuisance.- (1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers. Section 133 of the Code reads as under:- “Conditional order for removal of nuisance.- (1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers. (a) that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place or from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public; or (b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation, or the keeping of any goods or merchandise is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community, and that in consequence such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or merchandise should be removed or the keeping thereof regulated; or (c) that the construction of any building, or, the disposal of any substance, as is likely to occasion conflagration or explosion, should be prevented or stopped; or (d) that any building, tent or structure, or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing by, and that in consequence the removal, repair or support of such building, tent or structure, or the removal or support of such tree, is necessary; or (e) that any tank, well or excavation adjacent to any such way or public place should be fenced in such manner as to prevent danger arising to the public; or (f) that any dangerous animal should be destroyed, confined or otherwise disposed of , such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any such goods or merchandise, or owning, possessing or conttolling such building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation or owning or possessing such animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order (i) to remove such obstruction or nuisance; or (ii) to desist from carrying on, or to remove or regulate in such manner as may be directed, such trade or occupation, or to remove such goods or merchandise, or to regulate the keeping thereof in such manner as may be directed; or (iii) to prevent or stop the construction of such building or to alter the disposal of such trees; or (iv) to remove, repair or support such building, tent or structure, or to remove or support such trees; or (v) to fence such tank, well or excavation; or (vi) to destroy, confine or dispose of such dangerous animal in the manner provided in the said order; or, if he objects so to do, to appear before himself or some other Executive Magistrate subordinate to him at a time and place to be fixed by the order, and show cause, in the manner hereinafter provided, why the order should not be made absolute. (2) No order duly made by a Magistrate under this section shall be called in question in any civil Court.” 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no way for the petitioner to reach his agricultural field and, therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1954 (for short, “the Tenancy Act”) before the Tehsildar, Sanchore, claiming way through the agricultural land of non-petitioners No. 2 to 4. The Tehsildar, vide order dated 17.03.1987, allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 251 of the Tenancy Act and declared a way for the petitioner in Khasra No. 1183/1213 and the same has been recorded in the revenue record and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for right to way. 4. Learned Counsel for the contesting non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 has submitted that though the application filed by the petitioner under Section 251 of the Tenancy Act was allowed but it was not for a public way but the alleged way was to be used by the petitioner alone, which is evident from the application filed by the petitioner before the Tehsildar under Section 251 of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, it was contended that the way in question is not a public way and the provision of Section 133 of the Code cannot be pressed into service. He has relied on the decisions in Chopa & Ors. vs. Amba & State of Rajasthan, 1985 CrLR (Raj.) 606; Om Prakash vs. Sita Ram & Anr.,1994 CrLR (Raj.) 48; and Darwara Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.,1991 CrLR (Raj.) 454. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the way has been recorded in the revenue record, though on the application of the petitioner claiming a way for himself yet it becomes a public way and, therefore, the provisions of Section 133 of the Code become applicable. In support of this contention, he has relied on a decision of this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 454/2000 decided on 24.08.2001, wherein the question came-up for consideration was removal of obstruction on a public way by eracting thorn-fencing and dumping brick bets and stone pebbles. In support of this contention, he has relied on a decision of this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 454/2000 decided on 24.08.2001, wherein the question came-up for consideration was removal of obstruction on a public way by eracting thorn-fencing and dumping brick bets and stone pebbles. In that case, the petitioner therein, who obstructed the public way, had no right, title or interest over the land bearing Khasra No. 134 and, therefore, in those circumstances, this Court held that when it is clearly established that there exists a way on Khasra No. 134 and, when it is not shown to be a private way confined to the use of specified persons, and the non-petitioners have not shown, or do not claim any right, title or interest over this Khasra No. 134, it was held that it was a public way and, therefore, the order obstructing the public way was not sustainable. Whereas in the instant case, admittedly the land in question belongs to the non-petitioners and it was not a public way though the petitioner was given a right to use the way only for his own purposes by order of Tehsildar under Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and, therefore, it has clearly been established that there does not exist a public way which is or may be used by public at large. Hence, the case relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is of no help on the fact-situation of this case. 6. Clause (a) to Sub-section (1) of Section 133 of the Code deals with any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any “public place” or from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public. By this provision, a procedure has been provided to remove the nuisance. The very essential requirement for application of provision of Section 133 of the Code is that there must be evidence showing that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance has been created in a public place, way, river or channel which may be lawfully used by the public. The user by public is a condition precedent for initiating the proceeding under Section 133 of the Code. In the instant case, there is no such allegation that the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 obstructed any public way or the way which is lawfully used by the public. The user by public is a condition precedent for initiating the proceeding under Section 133 of the Code. In the instant case, there is no such allegation that the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 obstructed any public way or the way which is lawfully used by the public. The right to way was provided to the petitioner by the order of the Tehsildar on his application under Section 251 of the Tenancy Act for himself through the agricultural fields of the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4. Thus, there is no question of obstructing or creating nuisance by the non-petitioners on a public place or way which is lawfully used by public. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Revisional Court holding that the application under Section 133 of the Code filed by the petitioner was not maintainable cannot be said to be erroneous. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 7. Consequently, the revision petition has no merit and it is dismissed accordingly. However, it is open for the petitioner to seek remedy before the civil Court. The stay petition also stands dismissed.