Judgment : 1. Heard all. 2. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in RC.No.6800/07/A1 dated 3.3.2008 passed by the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ponneri. 3. The impugned order proceeds as if the petitioner herein has caused obstruction to persons using the Plan Marked channel in S.Nos.747, 745, 744, 722, 721, 719, 718, 713 of Vallur Village, Ponneri Taluk by putting up wall, which causes obstruction and the petitioner is by the same impugned order directed to remove the obstruction in the land in question within 10 days or to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ponneri on 13.3.2008 to show cause as to why the order should not be enforced. 4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the impugned order does not in compliance with mandatory requirement disclose the facts and reasons on the basis of which, the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer arrived at such conclusion that the petitioner has caused obstruction by way of putting up wall in the order mentioned survey numbers. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, also cited the authority reported in 2008 (2) MWN (Cr.) 383 (The Manager, Kodanad Estate, Kothagiri Taluk v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Assistant Collector, Coonoor, the Nilgiris District). 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) representing the first respondent, whose order is under challenge herein and the learned counsel for the second respondent, who made the complaint against the so called obstruction, would attempt to defend the correctness and validity of the order, on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer is empowered to pass one such order and to initiate proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C and the impugned order is based on materials to substantiate the obstruction etc. 6. This court is not inclined to accept the contention so raised on the side of the respondents 1 and 2. It cannot be disputed that the first respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, is under section 133 Cr.P.C empowered by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence if any as he thinks fit, to consider that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed and he may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction etc., to remove such obstruction within a time to be fixed in the order. 7. 7. In the present case, the information was received from the Tahsildar, Ponneri on 16.10.2007 and the same proceeds as if the complaint was received from various pattadars that one Devadoss Reddy, owner of M/s.T.R.Logistics has put up compound wall, thereby encroaching upon pathway and causing obstruction to other pattadars to use such pathway and inspection was conducted based on such complaints, but the measurements could not be taken. On the basis of such report, notice dated 11.12.2007 was issued by the first respondent to one Tulasi Narayanan, District President, Tamil Nadu Farmers Society, Ponneri and Devadoss Reddy through the Tahsildar, Ponneri to appear for enquiry on 17.12.2007, the copy of which is enclosed at page 6 of the typed set of papers filed along with this Criminal Original Petition. The second notice dated 20.12.2007 for the hearing on 7.1.2008 was also issued to the petitioners and others in this regard. Whereas, the impugned order came to be passed on 3.3.2008 and the same does not disclose as to whether and as to what is the outcome of the enquiry in this regard and the impugned order is not based on any finding arrived at by the Revenue officials in the course of such enquiry. 8. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is passed without any basis and is not supported by any finding arrived at in the enquiry, as such, the impugned order is, for want of one such finding, vitiated as baseless and unfounded. The first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer has in my considered view totally erred in passing one such order without completing the enquiry and without arriving at proper conclusion and without rendering a specific finding and without disclosing the finding in the impugned order. 9. The argument raised on the side of the petitioner against the validity of the impugned order is also fortified by the judgment of our High court in 2008 (2) MWN (Cr) 383 (The Manager, Kodanad Estate, Kothagiri Taluk v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Assistant Collector, Coonoor, the Nilgiris District) wherein our High Court has dealt with the scope of enquiry under Section 133 Cr.P.C in the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgments of other High courts. The learned brother judge in para 12.1 laid down the proposition of law emerged through the decisions of the Apex court and other High courts, which is extracted here under: “(a) The order under Section 133 Cr.P.C must be based upon material factors. (b) The order should be reasonable restriction and it must not be arbitrary or excessive and the procedure and the manner of imposition of restriction must be fair and just. (c) Proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C are not intended to settle private disputes between different members of public. (d) Unless there is imminent danger to the physical comfort of the community, the order under Section 133 Cr.P.C cannot be passed. (e) No action can be taken when the obstruction has been in existence for a long period and Section 133 Cr.P.C is attracted only in case of emergency and imminent danger. (f) The proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C is not a substitute for the Civil Proceedings. (g) For invoking Section 133 Cr.P.C there must be imminent danger to the property and consequential nuisance to the public. (h) The exercise of the power should be one of judicious discretion objectively exercised on pragmatic consideration of the given facts and circumstances from evidence on record.” Our High court has, by appreciating the issue involved therein in the light of the principles so laid down, observed in para 12.6 of the same judgment that Section 133 Cr.P.C provides summary remedy and involves a sense of emergency and the same cannot be used or rather misused when the valuable right of the owner of the property is at stake. It is further observed therein that any order passed under Section 133 Cr.P.C is based on evidence and when the evidence does not disclose any imminent danger to public tranquility or peace, the power under Section 133 Cr.P.C cannot be used or rather misused. 10. The impugned order herein, if appreciated in the light of the proposition laid down above, would disclose that the same is not based on any material and the same is the outcome of total non application of mind. 10. The impugned order herein, if appreciated in the light of the proposition laid down above, would disclose that the same is not based on any material and the same is the outcome of total non application of mind. As rightly observed by our High court in the decision cited above, considering the nature of the dispute, the respondent ought to have referred the parties to civil court of law and ought not to have resorted to such shortcut method of passing the impugned order for resolving the dispute between the parties. Hence, the impugned order is bad in law and is not in accordance with the procedure laid down under law and the same is liable to be quashed. 11. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the order made in RC.No.6800/07/A1 dated 03.03.2008 passed by the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ponneri, Thriuvallur District stands quashed. However, the parties are at liberty to approach the civil forum to resolve the dispute between them. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.