STATE OF KERALA Vs. PADINHARETHARA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The State is the appellant in this Writ Appeal. Petitioners no. 1 and 2 in the OP are the respondents in this Writ Appeal. The OP was filed to quash Ext. P3, circular letter of the Government dated 22-4-1978. The Varampetta and Venniyode Rivers flow within the Padinharethara Panchayat (1st petitioner ). The 1st petitioner alleged that the trees standing on the river puramboke belong to the Panchayat. The Panchayat conducted an auction of the fallen trees. The 2nd petitioner in the OP was one of the auction purchasers. The sale in his favour was confirmed. A few trees were removed. Thereafter the officials of the State (the appellants herein) are alleged to have prevented the petitioners from removing the trees already cut and sold. It was based on Ext. P3, Government letter. A complaint was made that the officials of the State (respondents in the OP) should not interfere with the right of the petitioners regarding the trees standing in the puramboke of the Varampetta and Venniyode rivers within the petitioner panchayat. Relying on the decision in Erattupetta Panchayat v. Tahsildar (1980 KLT 843), Kochu Thommen J. declared that all the rights in respect of the trees standing in the river puramboke stood vested in the Panchayat, and annulled Ext. P3. The State has come up in Writ Appeal.

(2.) WE heard counsel for the State Mr. Divakaran Pillai. Khalid J. following the earlier decision of this Court in Purupuzha Panchayat v. State of Kerala (1972 KLT 325) held that after the amendment by Act 22 of 1967, the entire right in the river puramboke was transferred to the Panchayat, as a consequence of which, the Panchayat got right to sell the trees standing on the river puramboke. The decision reported in Erattupetta Panchayat case (1980 KLT 843) was followed by Sivaraman Nair J. in Akalakunnam Panchayat v. State of Kerala (1986 KLT 441 ). WE perused through the decisions reported in Erattupetta Panchayat case (1980 KLT 843) and Akalakunnam Panchayat case (1986 KLT 441 ). WE are of the view, that the said decisions lay down the law correctly. Kochu Thommen J. followed the earlier decision of Khalid J. reported in Erattupetta Panchayat case (1980 KLT 843) and allowed the OP. The judgment under appeal is justified in law. No interference is called for. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. .