NAYARAMBALAM PANCHAYAT Vs. NARAKKAL PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute between the petitioner (Nayarambalam panchayat) and the Ist respondent (Narakkal Panchayat) is about sharing of the income from a Matsyakappu (a water-logged area used for prawn-fishing ). THE deputy Director of Panchayats gave Ext. P4 decision, in exercise of power under s. 45 (1) of the Panchayats Act, holding that the income derived from fishing was to be apportioned in the ratio of 21. 6. His was a simple approach: as per official records, an extent of 20. 64 acres of the Kappu was within the limits of Nayarambalam, and 6. 01 acres, within Narakkal, and the income was therefore to be enjoyed proportionately.

(2.) THE Nayarambalam Panchayat took up the matter before government, under sub-s. (3) of S. 45; and its main contention was that about 1. 5 acres out of the 6. 01 acres in Narakkal limits bad been converted into a road-cumbund; the real fishing area within the limits of that Panchayat was thus different from the one registered in the Government records of 1968. THEre was also a contention that by reason of the vesting of poramboke lands in the panchayats, under S. 82 of the Act, another 1. 83 acres had to be added as part of the fishing area within the limits of the Nayarambalam Panchayat. But the government was not disposed to depart from the measurements of 1968. As for the road-cum-bund, Government was of the view that the bund was put up partly at least in the interests of prawn fishing also. Something constructed in a panchayat to maintain or facilitate fishing could not be put against it so as to deprive it of its due share. Government however found that there were yielding coconut trees on the bund: and the final decision (in Ext. P7) was therefore to the effect that the two items of income should be pooled together and divided in the ratio fixed by the Dy. Director.

(3.) THERE is no case that in making Ext. P7 the Government had acted without bona fides or contrary to the provisions of the Act. The petition proceeds primarily on the basis that only an exact assessment of the fishing areas could have controlled the situation. I see no warrant for such a dry legalistic approach, in the language of S. 45; and even assuming that the respective extents are decisive is a situation like the one here, it cannot be said that ext. P7 has ignored this consideration. The decision therein rests on extents as fixed in the official records and the total income derived from the total extent under different heads. Ext. P7 is not vitiated, in my opinion, by errors about the existence or the limits of the statutory authority's jurisdiction or discretion. THERE are also no errors about understanding the legislative intents or motives. And the exercise of discretion cannot also be faulted for improper appreciation of relevant facts. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. . .