JUDGMENT : SOUMEN SEN, C.J. 1. Heard Mr. Albin A. Joseph, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Bijo Francis, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader. 2. The subject matter of the complaint before the authority under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 , is the alleged excavation of soil from the writ appellant’s land for the purpose of road construction. The authority passed the impugned order marked as Ext.P4, dated 29.08.2022. It appears from the report, which the Single Bench has taken into consideration in the judgment, that the area where the road was constructed slopes from south to north. Upon inspection, the newly constructed mud road was found to be 32 meters in length and 3 meters in width, situated at a distance of 4 meters from the house of Mr. Iqbal, the complainant. In the report it is also mentioned that the earthen embankments at the start of the northern side of the road has a height of approximately 3.8 meters and there appears to be dispute between both the parties regarding the property boundaries. The essential question that arises is whether the excavation occurred within the property boundaries of the writ appellant and, if so, whether such excavation is permissible under the law. 3. Another relevant issue is whether the authority under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 , had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and issue appropriate directions. 4. For a clearer understanding of the jurisdictional issue, it is necessary to refer to the definitions of “disaster” and “disaster management” under Sections 2 (d) and 2(e) of the . When read together harmoniously, these definitions make it clear that a “disaster” under the Act is intended to affect the community in the affected area, rather than an individual person. Hence, we are of the view that the Disaster Management Authority did not have the jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint. 5. However, as submitted by Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader, while the excavation of the land may constitute a violation attracting legal consequences, no such action has been taken so far. Hence, we are of the view that the Disaster Management Authority did not have the jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint. 5. However, as submitted by Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader, while the excavation of the land may constitute a violation attracting legal consequences, no such action has been taken so far. We make it clear that if there is any violation of any statute or legal provision in carrying out the excavation works, the authorities concerned are entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law, after issuing notice and providing the writ appellant a reasonable opportunity for hearing. 6. With regard to the boundary dispute, the writ appellant may approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. We have not restrained the respondents from relying on any documents that have surfaced during the writ petition and may be necessary to establish their rights. The impugned order is modified to the aforesaid extent. 7. The Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of.