Judgment :- 1. We see no reason to interfere. 2. The 1st respondent owns about an acre of paddy land which is separated from a block of paddy fields about 112 acres in extent by a thodu, regarding the size or nature of which, there is no evidence in the case. The appellant is a cultivator and therefore the "proprietor" within the meaning of (Kerala) Act 20 of 1967 of some land in the 112 acre block, and the questions that arise are: (1) Is the last respondent's field, "contiguously situated" with the 112 acre block so as to form part of the same "padasekharam" within the definition in S.2(b) of the Act; and (2) Is the opening of a sluice (by the removal of an obstruction to an existing sluice) so as to drain the water from the 1st respondent's field into the 112 acre block, to be drained out (in this particular case, by pumping) with the water collecting in that block, a temporary work necessary to drain the 1st respondent's field within the meaning of sub-section(4)of S.4 of the Act. 3. We think the learned single judge has rightly answered both questions in the affirmative. The purpose of the Act, as disclosed by the preamble, is "to provide for facilitating the execution of certain works connected with irrigation, flood-control, or drainage for purposes of agriculture to be done by the joint labour of cultivators". Having regard to this purpose we think that the words, "contiguously situated are used in S.2 (b), not in the sense, "touching, in actual contact" which is the strict meaning of the word, "contiguous" but in the sense, "neighbouring, situated in close proximity though not in contact" which also is a meaning given in the dictionaries although the Oxford English Dictionary qualifies this latter usage with the pejorative, "loosely". We think that what the words mean is that there must be sufficient proximity between the fields to enable "irrigation, flood-control or drainage for purposes of cultivation" to be advantageously done in the normal course by the joint labour of the cultivators. We think that what the words mean is that there must be sufficient proximity between the fields to enable "irrigation, flood-control or drainage for purposes of cultivation" to be advantageously done in the normal course by the joint labour of the cultivators. Ordinarily we would have insisted on more information about the size and nature of the intervening thodu before pronouncing whether the 1st respondent's field is contiguous with the 112 acre block so as to form part of the same padasekharam and attract words, 'wherever cultivation in any padasekharam or in any field in any such padasekharam is likely to be affected due to want of proper irrigation or drainage facilities" with which sub-section (4) of S.4 opens. But, in this case, there is no difficulty since it is the admitted case that, until 1966, the water collecting in the 1st respondent's field was being drained into the 112 acre block by means of a thoombu or pipe laid across the thodu it would appear, below the bed of the thodu which is on a higher level than the adjoining fields so that water cannot, in the natural course, flow into it from the fields and was being pumped out with the water otherwise collecting in that block. 4. There is a very illuminating discussion regarding the meaning of the word, "contiguous" in Spillers Ltd. v. Cardiff borough Assessment Committee etc. (1931) 2 KB. 21 on which strong reliance is placed by the appellant. Although in the context of the statute they were there construing, their Lordships preferred the stricter meaning of the word, namely, "touching" the well-known rules of statutory construction repeated in their judgment justify our choice of the looser meaning, "neighbouring" in the context of the statute we are here construing. In particular, we would point out that on a strict application of the stricter meaning no two paddy fields would be "contiguously situated", for, there would always be a dividing ridge (which, even if commonly regarded as part of the paddy field, is not strictly speaking paddy field) and the two would not be in actual contact. (One of the examples given by Lord Hewart C. J. in the decision just referred to where the use of the word can be only in the loose sense, namely, in the phrase, "contiguous islands" is very apt). (One of the examples given by Lord Hewart C. J. in the decision just referred to where the use of the word can be only in the loose sense, namely, in the phrase, "contiguous islands" is very apt). Or, not to be so strict, supposing a road were laid across a padasekharam dividing it into two portions yet not impeding the "irrigation, flood-control or drainage for purposes of agriculture" being done by the joint labour of the cultivators of the two portions? Would you say that each portion is a separate padasekharam? Rather, would you not say that the two still constitute but one padasekharam? 5. That the cultivation in the 1st respondent's field will be injuriously affected if the water in it is not drained is not disputed. That being so, we think that sub-section (4) of S.4 is attracted, the work in question, namely, the removal of the obstruction to the thoombu, being a temporary work necessary to drain the petitioner's field. We do not think that, having regard to the context and the purpose of the statute, the word, "necessary" is used in the subsection to mean, "indispensable". It only means, "requisite" having regard to the ordinary mode of cultivation employed. That, by incurring additional expenditure which the statutory authority, namely the Punja Special Officer has called "exorbitant", the 1st respondent can pump out the water on her own, instead of, as was the practice till 1966, having it pumped out along with the water of the rest of the padasekharam does not mean that the particular work is not necessary for the drainage of the 1st respondent's field. Sub-section (4) of S.4 is thus attracted even if, as is contended on behalf of the appellant, the obstruction to the thoombu does not amount to an obstruction to an existing vachal. 6. The work in question benefits only the 1st respondent. She wants it to be done, and, that being so, as the learned single judge has rightly held, the prohibition is S.5 cannot apply notwithstanding that the cultivators of the rest of the padasekharam are opposed to it. In fact, this particular contention has not been pressed before us. 7. The impugned order, Ext. P2, directing that the work be carried out was rightly upheld by the learned single judge. 8. A word of caution is, perhaps, necessary. In fact, this particular contention has not been pressed before us. 7. The impugned order, Ext. P2, directing that the work be carried out was rightly upheld by the learned single judge. 8. A word of caution is, perhaps, necessary. We must not be understood as having decided that the Act authorises (or could validly authorise) interference with rights in or over land. That is an aspect which was at no stage canvassed and which has therefore not arisen for decision. 9. We dismiss this appeal but make no order as to costs. Dismissed.