ERATTUPETTA PAHCHAYAT Vs. TAHSILDAR MEENACHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Erattupetta Panchayat represented by its Executive Officer is the petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner prays to quash Ext. P2 by which the Tahsildar, Meenachil Taluk, informed the Panchayat to cancel the auction conducted by it of a tree in a property which according to the Tahsildar did not vest in the Panchayat, and for other reliefs. The river poromboke in Survey No 1215/1 is one of the items transferred to the Panchayat. A tree standing on this property fell on account of wind. The Panchayat auctioned the tree and it was purchased by one Narayanan Nair Sankaran Nair. He paid the bid amount and removed the tree. The petitioner received a communication dated 16-11-1979 from the Taluk Office, Meenachil, informing the Panchayat that it had right only to take the fruits from the tree standing on the poromboke land and not any right over the property or the tree. The petitioner was further informed that it should cancel the auction conducted as per Ext. P2. The petitioner sent Ext. P-3 reply stating that as per S.82 of the Kerala Panchayat Act as amended by Act 22 of 1967 all the rights in the poromboke land stood transferred to and vested in the Panchayat. The Tahsildar was not satisfied with the reply given by the Panchayat. This writ petition is filed apprehending action by the first respondent against the bidder against whom it is said a complaint has been filed before the police.

(2.) The short point for consideration is, whether the stand taken by the Tahsildar is right. That the tree in question stood on a river poromboke is not in dispute. The tree fell down in 1979. The rights of the Panchayat regarding river porombokes stand considerably altered by the Amendment Act 22 of 1967, under which the vesting of water course, springs etc. mentioned originally in S.62 and 82 have been additionally mentioned as "shall stand transferred to and vest in the Panchayat" were substituted for the words "vest in the Panchayat and shall be subject to its control" by the Amendment Act 22 of 1967. The amendment to S.82 came into force with effect from 1-11-1967. The stand of the first respondent could have been justified if the tree fell before the Amendment Act 22 of 1967.

(3.) A similar question was considered by this court in the decision reported in Purupuzha Panchayat v. State of Kerala and others ( 1972 KLT 325 ). There, this court considered the scope of S.62. It was held that before the Amendment, District roads vested with the Panchayat only for maintenance and control while after the Amendment the entire right was transferred, as a consequence of which the Panchayat got right to sell the trees standing on the property. Similar is the case here with the difference that in this case we are concerned with the river poromboke while in that case the Court had to consider roads.