JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. 1. Above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order of the 1st respondent. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:- Petitioner is a native of Kannur District who has purchased 3.3. ares of property in R.S. No.35/7 of Edakkad amsom, Attadappa desom in Kannur Taluk as per registered Jenmam Deed No.372 of 2011 of SRO Kadachira. At the time of purchase, there was a small house in it, which was reconstructed by the petitioner, and he is residing there along with his family. Respondent No.2 is the son of respondent No.3, and respondent No.3 has purchased property on the western side of the property of the petitioner, and thereafter a portion of the property was assigned to the 2 nd respondent, his son. It is contended that the 2 nd respondent started to construct a house in the property on the western side of the property of the petitioner by encroaching upon the petitioner’s property. 3. Petitioner submits that after the purchase of property in the year 2011, the property was levelled to that of the road level, and the petitioner reconstructed the house. Due to some illegal construction activities undertaken in the property of the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents, rainwater started to flow from the said property into the petitioner’s property. Thereupon, Ext.P1 complaint was preferred before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thaliparamba. As no action was taken on the said complaint, the petitioner has filed a suit before the Munsiff Court, Thalassery, as OS No.157/2020 to remove the illegal construction made by the 2 nd respondent. A commission was taken out, and Ext.P3 report was filed, in which it is reported that the property of the 2 nd respondent is situated above 10 feet high and that a water channel can be seen, through which water is flowing from the property of the 2 nd respondent to the petitioner’s property. While so, a complaint was preferred by the 2 nd respondent before the 1 st respondent, the District Disaster Management Authority represented by its Chairman and District Collector, Kannur, before whom the petitioner appeared and submitted Ext.P4 affidavit. In Ext.P4 affidavit, the pendency of the civil case before the Munsiff Court, Thalassery, regarding the very same subject matter was brought to the notice of the 1 st respondent. In Ext.P4 affidavit, the pendency of the civil case before the Munsiff Court, Thalassery, regarding the very same subject matter was brought to the notice of the 1 st respondent. But the 1 st respondent, without considering any of the contentions of the petitioner, passed an order under Section 33 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2005’) directing the petitioner to construct a safety wall and also directed the Engineering Section attached to the Kannur Municipal Corporation to monitor the work. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Petitioner would submit that the 1 st respondent has absolutely no authority to issue an order in the nature of Ext.P5 invoking the power under Section 33 of the Act, 2005. Petitioner, relying on the definition of a Disaster as provided under Section 2 (d) of the Act 2005, submits that the present situation is not a disaster as contemplated by the Act 2005 and therefore Ext P5 order is bad in law. 5. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondents 2 and 3, wherein it is contended that it was assured by the petitioner that a retaining wall would be constructed after the excavation is over to avoid a landslide, but the petitioner later reneged from the said assurance. On the complaint made by the petitioner Ext.R2(b) report was filed by the Tahsildar to the District Collector intimating that the house of the respondents is in a dangerous situation, and further that initial stages of landslide due to unscientific excavation carried out by the petitioner is noticed just one meter away from the house of the respondents. A similar report was submitted by the Geologist also, as Ext.R2(c). It is further submitted that the 1 st respondent has issued Ext.P5 order exercising his powers under the Act, 2005, after evaluating all factual aspects revealed through the inspections conducted by various authorities and therefore no interference is called for. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of both sides. 7. A perusal of Ext.P5 order would reveal that an order has been issued by the 1 st respondent invoking the power under Section 33 of the Act, 2005. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of both sides. 7. A perusal of Ext.P5 order would reveal that an order has been issued by the 1 st respondent invoking the power under Section 33 of the Act, 2005. An order in the nature of Ext.P5 could be issued by the 1st respondent only on finding that there is a chance for a disaster to occur, and to avert that as part of the disaster management, a direction could be issued. Section 2 (d) of the Act, 2005 deals with ‘disaster’ which reads as follows:- “(d) “disaster” means a catastrophe, mishap, calamity or grave occurrence in any area, arising from natural or man made causes, or by accident or negligence which results in substantial loss of life or human suffering or damage to, and destruction of, property, or damage to, or degradationof, environment, and is of such a nature or magnitude as to be beyond the coping capacity of the community of the affected area.” Section 2 (e) defines disaster management, which includes prevention of danger or threat of any disaster. Therefore, if the 1 st respondent is convinced that the particular situation available in this case is a ‘disaster’ as defined under the Act 2005, he could issue orders for disaster management, which includes prevention of danger or threat of a disaster. The direction in Ext.P5 to construct a retaining wall is a power which could be exercised by the authority since it is a step taken towards disaster management. But the issue to be considered in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner could be directed to construct a retaining wall invoking the power under Section 33 of the Act, 2005, as is done in Ext P5 order. Section 33 of the Act, 2005 reads as follows:- “33. Requisition by the District Authority. But the issue to be considered in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner could be directed to construct a retaining wall invoking the power under Section 33 of the Act, 2005, as is done in Ext P5 order. Section 33 of the Act, 2005 reads as follows:- “33. Requisition by the District Authority. - The District Authority may by order require any officer or any Department at the district level or any local authority to take such measures for the prevention or mitigation of disaster, or to effectively respond to it, as may be necessary, and such officer or department shall be bound to carry out such order” (Underline supplied) Going by Section 33 of the Act, 2005, the District authority may by order require any officer or any Department of the District level or any local authority to take such necessary steps for prevention or mitigation of disaster, or to effectively respond to it, as may be necessary and such officer of the Department shall be bound to carry out such orders. A reading of Section 33 of the Act, 2005, reveals that the District authority can issue an order only to any officer or any Department at the District level or any local authority to take measures for the prevention or mitigation of disaster. But as per Ext.P5, direction has been issued to the petitioner to undertake construction of a retaining wall and the local authority was directed to supervise the same. In view of the clear wording in Section 33 of the Act, 2005, I am of the opinion that an order in the nature of Ext.P5 cannot be issued directing the petitioner to construct a retaining wall. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is set aside to the extent it directed the petitioner to construct a retaining wall. 8. However, the interference by this Court on Ext P5 order on the sole finding that a direction could not be issued to the petitioner invoking power under Section 33 of the Act 2005, will not stand in the way of the 1st respondent taking any action as empowered as per the Act 2005 if the 1st respondent is of the opinion that the situation prevailing in the subject property is a ‘disaster’ as defined in Section 2 (d) of the Act 2005. It is made clear that any such action will be subject to the final decision in the suit pending between the parties as OS No.157 of 2020 before the Munsiff Court, Thalassery. The writ petition is disposed of as above.