PURAPPUZHA PANCHAYAT Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question, briefly stated, that arises for decision depends on the construction to be placed on S.62 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960. This section was amended by Act 22 of 1967, the Kerala Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1967 which came into force on 1-11-67. For resolving the controversy in this case, it is necessary to read the section as it stood before it was amended by Act 22 of 1967 and to read the section after it was so amended. The sections before and after the amendments are extracted in an appendix to this judgment.

(2.) Regarding the effect of S.82(1), which was similarly worded as S.62(1) before both sections were amended (S.82 was also amended by Act 22 of 1967), a Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal 22 of 1969 (Meenachil Panchayat v. Chacko Devassia reported in 1971 KLT SN 46 ) held that the 'vesting' under that section was only for the purpose of maintenance and control. This means that the property does not stand transferred to the Panchayat and all rights and liabilities in relation to the properties also do not stand transferred to the Panchayat. There can be little doubt that after the amendment by virtue of the wording of S.62(A) as amended and by virtue of the clarification in sub-s.(1A)) of S.62 the ownership will itself stand transferred along with all rights and liabilities to the Panchayat. There is no doubt that this must happen with effect from 1-11-67, the date on which the amendment came into operation. The question is whether by virtue of sub-s.(1A) of S.62 it is right to assume that there has been a transfer and vesting not from 1-11-67 but from 1-1-62 as was thought of by Mathew, J. in disposing of the controversy between the petitioner Panchayat and the State Government on a former occasion by Ext. P3 judgment. Counsel for the petitioner contends that by virtue of the wording of sub-s.(1A) of S.62 it is clear that the rights and liabilities stood transferred with effect from 1-1-62-In support of this it was submitted that the word 'vest' was used in S.62(1) as it stood before the amendment and therefore it must be taken that S.62(1A) when it refers to 'such vesting' it was referring to the vesting under the amended Act and therefore the rights and liabilities in relation to the properties stood transferred with effect from 1-1-62. I find it difficult to accept this argument. S.62(1A) only clarifies what is meant by 'vesting' under the section. S.62 (1A) has admittedly no retrospective effect. It cannot therefore possibly refer to a vesting before 1-11-67.

(3.) In the above view, I need not enter into the controversy in this case as to whether the district roads are exempt from the vesting under S.62(1) or not for I shall assume that before the amendment was introduced by Act 22 of 1967 the district roads too stood vested with the Panchayat. This vesting however can only be a vesting for maintenance and control and cannot give the right to sell the trees standing on the property as has been done by the Panchayat. Since the auction took place before 1-11-67, it has to be determined whether the Panchayat had any right at that time to auction the trees. From what I have stated above, the Panchayat did not get any right to the trees because the amendment became effective only from 1-11-67. I see therefore no reason to interfere with the order of the Collector, Ext. P4.