JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. The captioned appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3250 of 2022 challenging the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 26.10.2022, whereby the following reliefs sought for in the writ petition were declined: 1. To issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 order of the first respondent and quash the same; 2. To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 order on the basis of Ext.P4 and after hearing the views of the 4th respondent, the petitioner and other stake holders. 2. The challenge in the writ petition was against Exhibit P3 order dated 30.08.2021 passed by the District Collector on the basis of a direction issued by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 29037 of 2020-D dated 22.12.2020 filed by the General Secretary of the Kerala River Protection Committee, whereby the District Collector, taking into account Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 (‘Act, 2003’ for short) directed the appellant to demolish the check dam constructed in his property by blocking a stream flowing through the property. 3. The paramount contention advanced by the appellant is that the impugned order passed by the District Collector is not in accordance with law and that the term “thadayana’ is a malayalam term having a meaning ‘check dam’ intended to restrain the flow of water or collect water. According to the appellants, what is now constructed is a structure to ensure free flow of water without affecting the movement of the people across the land on either side. It is also submitted that the pipelines were laid before putting tiles and making it a road to ensure the free flow of water across the lands. It is further pointed out that the Grama Panchayat did not oppose it for the reason that it will help the people to make use of the same as a public way to go to different places. 4. It is further pointed out that the Grama Panchayat did not oppose it for the reason that it will help the people to make use of the same as a public way to go to different places. 4. It is further contended that in the light of Exhibit P3 order, tenders are invited for undertaking the demolition work of the pipelines and that if the said road is demolished, it will adversely affect the right of the people to move freely from one place to another. So also, it is stated that the local people who are making use of the road has approached the District Collector — respondent No.1, to review the decision taken as per Exhibit P3, evident from Exhibit P4. 5. It is also submitted that if the pipelines are removed, it will damage the road and will put a lot of people, including the petitioner, into difficulties. It is also contended that the District Collector has no independent power as Chairman to pass orders under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and further that powers are conferred on him to pass such orders only in emergent situations, which are unavoidable. Therefore, it is contended that Exhibit P3 order is illegal and arbitrary. It is also submitted that the construction made by the appellant would not affect the free flow of the natural course of water and the construction was made to ensure free flow of water and there wouldn't any adverse effect by blocking the running water. 6. The 5th respondent complainant has filed a detailed counter affidavit supporting Exhibit P3 order passed by the District Collector. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed by this Court to ascertain the factual circumstances and the Commissioner has also filed a detailed report. Additional documents are also produced by the appellant and a reply affidavit is also filed. 7. The learned single Judge, after considering the rival submissions made by the parties, has arrived at the conclusion that as the water course belongs to the Government, the doctrine of public trust would come into play and it enjoins the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public, rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial exploitation to satisfy the greed of a few. 8. 8. The learned single Judge, in order to arrive at the conclusions, has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. v. Minguel Martins [2009) 3 SCC 571] and Association for Environment Protection v. State of Kerala [2013) 7 SCC 226]. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge, the appeal is preferred. 9. The paramount contention advanced by the appellant is that the local people are drawing water from the check dam and around 30 families were using it, and if the constructions are removed, the people apprehend water scarcity in near future. It is also pointed out that the check dam was constructed with the pipes enabling the water crossing and only the first check dam with the road situated in the property is having approximately 60 centimeter wide pipeline to facilitate the flow of water. That apart, it is contended that the learned single Judge was not right in holding that the water course belongs to the Government and the doctrine of public trust comes into play. Other contentions are also raised. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. P. B.Sahasranaman, Sri. K.P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. C.M. Mohammed Iqbal for respondent No.5, Sri. Peeyus A. Kottam for the 6th respondent and Smt. K.P. Sushmitha for the 4th respondent, and perused the pleadings and materials on record. 11. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition relying upon the provisions of the Act, 2003, which was taken into account by the District Collector while passing the impugned Exhibit P3 order. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is relying upon Section 2(aq) of the Act, 2003 defining the term ‘water course’ to mean that a river, stream, springs, channel, lake or any natural collection of water other than in a private land and includes any tributary or branch of any river, stream, springs or channel. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that since the definition of the term ‘water course’ takes the collection of water other than in a private land, the action of the appellant by constructing the check dam, is not violative of the provisions of the Act, 2003. 12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that since the definition of the term ‘water course’ takes the collection of water other than in a private land, the action of the appellant by constructing the check dam, is not violative of the provisions of the Act, 2003. 12. But, in our considered view, what is intended by ‘the natural collection of water other than in private land’ would not take in a stream that flows from different place and running through the property of the appellant. It only means the collection of water within the property itself. Therefore, the contention advanced based on the definition of ‘water course’ that water course will not include the collection of water by the appellant in his property, cannot be sustained under law. 13. Section 3 to 5 of Chapter II of Chapter II of the Act, 2003 deals with ‘conservation of water in water courses’, which is relevant to the context and it reads thus: “3. Water courses and water in water courses to be Government property.— Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any custom or usage or in any contract or other instrument but subject to the provisions of section 218 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994) and section 208 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 1994), all water courses and all water in such water courses in the State shall be the property of the Government, and the Government shall be entitled to conserve and regulate the use of such watercourses and the water in all those water courses for the purposes of irrigation and the generation of Electricity and for matters connected therewith or for both. 4. 4. Regulation on abstraction of water from water course.-(1) Save as provided in this Act, no person or agency shall abstract water from a water course by installation of any mechanical or electrical device, the capacity of which, in the aggregate, is more than five horse power, or any hose, pipe or other similar device or by any other means except with the previous permission of the officer authorised by the Government in this behalf within whose jurisdiction such device for abstraction of water is installed and subject to such terms and conditions and on payment of such fees, as may be prescribed: Provided that the Kerala Water Authority or any local authority shall not be liable to obtain a permit under this subsection. (2) Any person or agency aggrieved by an order refusing to grant permission under sub-section (1), may within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed, appeal to the Collector and the Collector shall, after hearing the appellant and the authorised officer, pass such orders on the appeal as he deems fit within one month from the date of receipt of the appeal. (3) If any person abstracts water from a water course in violation of the provisions of sub-section (1) or an order of the Collector under sub-section (2), the officer authorised under sub-section (1) or any person authorised by him in that behalf shall, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken for such violation, have power to enter any property, place or premises in which any device is installed for abstraction of water and to remove or cause such device to be removed or also to confiscate such device if he is satisfied that such confiscation is necessary for the prevention of abstraction of water. (4) Any lapse in supervision of the provisions contained in subsection (3) by the officers authorised under sub-section (1) or any person authorised by him on that behalf will also be liable for disciplinary action. 5. (4) Any lapse in supervision of the provisions contained in subsection (3) by the officers authorised under sub-section (1) or any person authorised by him on that behalf will also be liable for disciplinary action. 5. Regulation on construction of reservoirs, anicut etc.-(1) No person or agency or local authority shall construct any reservoir or anicut or weir or any other permanent structure in or across any water course for the purpose of diverting water therefrom except with the previous sanction of the Government or such authority as may be authorised by the Government in that behalf and subject to such terms and conditions as the Government or such authority may impose. (2) Where any structure is constructed in violation of the provisions of sub-section (1), the Government or the authority authorised by the Government under that sub-section shall, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken for such violation, have power to remove such structure or cause it to be removed and to recover the cost of such removal from the person or persons responsible for such construction.” 14. Therefore, it is quite clear and evident that the running stream passing through the property of the appellant cannot be blocked by the appellant by constructing any anicut, check dam etc. Even though the appellant has raised a contention that he is disputing the fact that a stream is running through the property of the appellant and therefore, the provisions of the Act, 2003 would not apply, the further contentions made by the appellant in the writ petition itself would make it clear that he is admitting the fact that a stream is running through the property. However, it is contended that since appropriate pipe is provided for the smooth flow of water in the check dam constructed by the appellant, no manner of prejudice would be caused to anyone. 15. Since the law remaining in the Act, 2003 prohibits the introduction of a running stream through the property, it cannot be said that Exhibit P3 impugned order passed by the District Collector is, in any way, illegal or arbitrary, justifying interference of a writ court. Therefore, the writ court was right in dismissing the writ petition and also applying the principles of doctrine of public trust in finding that the action of the District Collector is in accordance with law. 16. Therefore, the writ court was right in dismissing the writ petition and also applying the principles of doctrine of public trust in finding that the action of the District Collector is in accordance with law. 16. So also, on an analysis of the order passed by the District Collector, it is clear and convincing that the District Collector has complied with the principles of natural justice, and it was taking into account the attendant circumstances and providing an opportunity of hearing and participation to the appellant and other affected parties, the impugned order was passed. 17. Considering the facts, law and the circumstances, we have no hesitation to say that the appellant has failed to make out any case of jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities in the judgment of the learned single Judge justifying interference in an intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. Needless to say, writ appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.