JUDGMENT : P.M.Manoj, J. The writ petition is preferred challenging Exts.P9 & P18 orders passed by the 3 rd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengannur, under the provisions of Sections 133 and 138(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short ' Cr.P.C .’). The question to be decided is whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against an order passed under Sections 133 and 138(2) Cr.P.C . The brief facts of the case are as follows. 2. Pursuant to a partition between the petitioner, the 9 th respondent, and the husband of the 10 th respondent, each received 9 cents of properties in re-survey No.388 and 388/3 of Chengannur Village, facing the Mavelikkara-Kozhencherry PWD road on the Northern side as a result of the partition suit as OS No.122/9 of Munsiff Court, Chengannur. It is contended that a natural water stream or channel has been in existence from time immemorial, commencing from the adjacent side of Metropolitan Nagar beneath the Puthenkavu-Perilassery road, and passing through various properties and finally reaching the southern side in Survey No.388/3 of Block No.8, where the properties of the 9 th respondent, the petitioner and the 10 th respondent exist. It is alleged that the said stream then turns along the western side of the 10th respondent’s property, crosses a culvert on the Mavelikkara-Kozhencherry PWD road at Puthenkavu junction and ultimately reaches the Pamba River. - 3. Being very influential, the 10 th respondent, with the connivance of the 9 th respondent, who is a ward member of Chenagnnur Municipality, had allegedly encroached the natural water stream. Then filled it with ordinary earth along with 9 cents of land on the eastern side of the water channel and the western side of the water stream/channel of the other property and constructed a wall. The above-mentioned act of the 10 th respondent obstructed water flow from the higher area of the nearby locality towards the Pamba River. Against which the petitioner engaged in multiple levels of litigation and also preferred a representation before the 2 nd respondent. Thereafter, on the basis of the report submitted by the Village Officer as per Ext.P6, the 2 nd respondent directed the 3 rd respondent to take appropriate action as per Ext.P7. Against which the petitioner engaged in multiple levels of litigation and also preferred a representation before the 2 nd respondent. Thereafter, on the basis of the report submitted by the Village Officer as per Ext.P6, the 2 nd respondent directed the 3 rd respondent to take appropriate action as per Ext.P7. Despite Ext.P6 report and the specific directions in Ext.P7, the 3 rd respondent, allegedly in connivance with the 10 th and 11 th respondents, passed Ext.P9 whereby a direction was given to construct a new route for the water stream from the point at which it was blocked, to proceed along the western side of the property of the petitioner and eastern side of the property of the 10 th respondent. - 4. According to the petitioner, there was a water channel as evident in Ext.P6, which was encroached and blocked by 10 th respondent and had unauthorisedly constructed a drain of one meter width on the northern side of the property and connected it to the old culvert. The petitioner submitted an objection as contemplated under the statutory provision. In the meanwhile, the 7 th respondent issued a stop memo against the construction activity until the boundaries are finalised on the basis of a complaint received by the 3 rd respondent. Even that was replied by the petitioner stating that the four boundaries are fixed by Ext.P1 order of the Munsiff Court. Even thereafter, the 7 th respondent refixed the sketch, superseding Ext.P1 final decree executed by EP No.20/2014 vide order dated 21.06.2013 in I.A. No.1719/2010 in OS No.122/2009of Munsiff Court, Chengannur. The said act of the 7 th respondent was also alleged to be in connivance with the 10 th respondent. Thereafter the 7 th respondent issued letter dated 14.07.2016, which was also replied by the petitioner. Then the petitioner preferred a representation to the 3 rd respondent, vide letter dated 27.05.2016, which was not acted upon. 5. In the meanwhile, the 12 th respondent approached this Court by preferring Crl.M.C. No.2647/2017 for the implementation of Ext.P9. Vide order dated 11.04.2017, this Court directed the 3 rd respondent to give effect to Ext.P9 order in accordance with law. 5. In the meanwhile, the 12 th respondent approached this Court by preferring Crl.M.C. No.2647/2017 for the implementation of Ext.P9. Vide order dated 11.04.2017, this Court directed the 3 rd respondent to give effect to Ext.P9 order in accordance with law. Accordingly, in compliance with the said direction, the 3 rd respondent passed an order dated 31.05.2017, i.e., Ext.P18 whereby the petitioner was directed to construct a drain of equal width through her property, from the south-eastern portion of her property, passing through the western boundary, and joining the newly constructed drain put up by the 10 th respondent on the northern side adjacent to the PWD road. The said order was communicated while the petitioner was in USA. Hence, she preferred an objection before the 3 rd respondent via email. She also communicated through her lawyer seeking a reconsideration of Ext.P18, for a direction to the 10 th respondent to remove the ordinary earth filled over the natural water stream on the southern and western side of re-suvery No.388/3 of Chengannur Village. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P9 and P18 orders. - 6. In support of her contention petitioner brought the attention of this Court to the reported decisions in MC Metha v. Kamalnath and others [ (1997) 1 SCC 388 ] and 2000 (6) SCC 213 ]. In the light of those decisions it was contended that nobody is entitled to change the course of water stream. 7. In response to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 10 th respondent submitted that there was no water stream as alleged by the petitioner. Even in Ext.P6 report, it is conveyed by the Tahsildar that, as per the revenue records, no water course exists. Moreover, the property of the 10 th respondent is situated at a higher level than that of the petitioner. Naturally, there would not have been a water course. Rather, the petitioner has encroached upon certain portions of puramboke land on the northern side of her property by the side of Mavelikkara- Kozhencerry PWD road which was connected to a Thodu passing through the property of the petitioner. Suppressing these material facts, the petitioner is attempting to dig a water channel through the property of the 10 th respondent. - 8. Suppressing these material facts, the petitioner is attempting to dig a water channel through the property of the 10 th respondent. - 8. In response to these contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the Chengannur Municipality submitted that the water channel is an inevitable cause of nature which cannot be obstructed, as the same will result in flood in the locality. The remedy available is implementation of the order passed by the 3 rd respondent and the Municipality is bound to implement Ext.P18. If the petitioner is not willing to carry out the construction of the water channel as directed by the 3 rd respondent, the Municipality is ready to undertake the work and the expense borne by them will be recovered from the petitioner. 9. I have heard Dr. Abraham Mechinkara for the petitioner, Sri.J.S. Ajith Kumar learned counsel for the 10 th respondent, Sri.V.N. Haridas learned standing counsel for the 8 th respondent and learned Govt. Pleader for respondents 1 to 5. 10. The primary question before this Court is whether the order passed under Sections 133 and 138(2) is challengeable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The answer given to such a question by the counsel for the petitioner is that the writ petition is already admitted. Hence, it is not open to raise a question of maintainability. - 11. Generally, an alternative revision mechanism is available against an order under Section 133 Cr.PC passed by the Magistrate. However, it does not create an absolute bar in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. Whereas, it can be exercised as an extraordinary jurisdiction by exercising discretion in cases where 1. There has been a great miscarriage of justice. 2. Proceedings are without jurisdiction. 3. Fundamental rights of the petitioner have been violated. 4. There has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. 12. In the case in hand, going by the materials as well as the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner, no such circumstances were pleaded except ground J to a slight extent. Wherein it is contended that the 3 rd respondent has no power to pass orders like Ext.P9 and Ext.P18, directing the petitioner to construct a drain through her property on the western side, so as to be connected to the new drain constructed on the northern side of the 10 th respondent’s property. Wherein it is contended that the 3 rd respondent has no power to pass orders like Ext.P9 and Ext.P18, directing the petitioner to construct a drain through her property on the western side, so as to be connected to the new drain constructed on the northern side of the 10 th respondent’s property. The rest of the contentions are on the basis of the facts in the issue, especially with respect to the existence of a water channel in the 10 th respondent’s property. In the absence of established facts produced through documents, such as revenue records or the assent register of the Municipality, this Court cannot consider the evidence with respect to the existence of such a water channel. Moreover, the petitioner’s contention on the basis of the Provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Municipality Act, and Land Utilisation Order also cannot be considered in the absence of specific pleadings. - 13. Petitioner has not brought to the attention of this Court that there has been a great miscarriage of justice that the proceedings are without jurisdiction, that there is a violation of the Fundamental rights of the petitioner, or that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. 14. Since the petitioner could not establish her case with the support of any documentary evidence, this Court cannot go much beyond the pleadings. Going by the documentary evidence produced along with the bundle, it does not appear that there is a substantial miscarriage of justice. Since the order has been passed under Sections 133 and 138(2) of Cr.P.C ., after complying with the procedure contemplated under the said provisions, and in the absence of any specific pleading with reference to violation of the statutory provisions, it cannot be construed that the 3 rd respondent has passed the order without jurisdiction. Especially in the light of the direction in Ext.P17 order in Crl.M.C No. 2647/2017 by this Court, Ext.P18 order, passed under Section 138 (2) of Cr.P.C ., is in compliance with the direction dated 11.04.2017 in the afore Criminal M.C. - 15. The petitioner also could not establish through the pleadings or during the argument that fundamental rights available to the petitioner were violated. The petitioner also could not establish through the pleadings or during the argument that fundamental rights available to the petitioner were violated. The petitioner’s main contention is that a water channel ought to be constructed through the property of the 10 th respondent, in order to avoid the construction of such a water channel as directed in the impugned order. However, the reason assigned for such demand is not at all convincing to the extent that such construction will result in the violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner, a great miscarriage of justice. 16. Finally, there is no allegation with respect to violation of principles of natural justice. Even the petitioner cannot contend that there is a violation of principles of natural justice, since after the issuance of Ext.P9, she had preferred a reply as per Ext.P10. Even prior to passing of Ext.P18, it is evident from the impugned order that the representative of the petitioner was heard. Hence, she cannot contend that there is a violation of principles of natural justice. - 17. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with Exts.P9 and P18 orders. This view of mine is fortified by the decisions of ACT Steel Pvt Ltd Palakkad v. State of Kerala and others ( 2016 (4) KHC 336 ) and CISF v. Santhosh Kumar Pandey (2022 KHC 7289). Hence, on the basis of the aforementioned discussion, the challenge against Exts.P9 and P18 cannot succeed and the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition will not bar the petitioner from invoking revisional jurisdiction under Cr.P.C ., if it is available in accordance with law.