Judgment :- 1. These two cases raise common questions. Therefore, they have been heard jointly and are being disposed of by this single judgment. In both the cases the dispute is regarding a common boundary between two Panchayats. The Government passed an order G.O. MS. 115/71/LAD dated 4th August, 1971 a copy of which is marked as Ext. P6 in O. P. No. 4552 and Ext. P2 in O.P. 4829 of 1971 for fixation of boundaries between two adjoining Panchayats where rivers and/or lakes form the boundaries. That order reads as follows: "The Director of Panchayats, in his letter first cited, had reported that there are disputes between Panchayats in respect of the jurisdiction over the rivers which form the boundaries between two Panchayat areas. The former Travancore Government have in their Order R. Dis. 613/22 Rev. dated 29 51922 directed that the midlines of the rivers and lakes specified therein be adopted as the survey boundary between the pakuthies and the taluks. The Director of Panchayats and the Board of Revenue have suggested that the midlines of rivers and lakes may be fixed as the boundaries of adjoining Panchayats. Government accept the above recommendation of the Director of Panchayats and the Board of Revenue, and direct that in all cases where rivers and lakes form the boundaries between two Panchayats, the midlines of such rivers and lakes will be fixed as the boundaries of those adjoining Panchayats." 2. The Panchayats concerned in O. P. 4552 of 1971 are the Eraviperoor Panchayat and the Kaviyoor Panchayat. The Manimala river lies between these two Panchayats. The Eraviperoor Panchayat, who is the petitioner, claimed that the river between the two Panchayats lies exclusively within the Eraviperoor Village, which is part of the Eraviperoor Panchayat, and that the Kaviyoor Panchayat has no right on that part of the river. This petition has, therefore, been filed to quash the above Government Order as well as a sale notice issued by the Executive Officer of the Kaviyoor Panchayat on 27 91971 for sale of the right of collecting sand from the half portion of the river lying adjoining the Kaviyoor Panchayat. Admittedly, the Kaviyoor Panchayat has no claim for any part of Eraviperoor Village. Admittedly, the Kaviyoor Panchayat has no claim for any part of Eraviperoor Village. There is no specific averment in the counter-affidavit of the Kaviyoor Panchayat that a part of the river falls beyond the Eraviperoor Village, or that it falls within the Kaviyoor Village which admittedly forms part of the Kaviyoor Panchayat. Its claim is based only on the impugned Government Order. The order of the Travancore Government dated 29 51922, which is referred to in the order impugned would show that, in cases where rivers and lakes separated two villages, the midline of the river or lake concerned may be adopted as the survey boundary. Accordingly the midline of the Manimala river would be the boundary between the Eraviperoor and Kaviyoor Villages. Then the claim of the petitioner that the entire portion of the river falls within the Eraviperoor Panchayat cannot be sustained. But some of the other documents to which my attention has been drawn at the hearing, would show that the Travancore Government Order was not of general character, and that it related only to certain rivers and certain survey numbers. It is not possible for me to decide that question on the materials placed before me. If as a matter of fact the order of the Travancore Government generally fixed the boundaries of the villages in the manner stated therein, the villages of Eraviperoor and Kaviyoor automatically get divided and demarcated by the midline of the river as directed by that order. If, on the other band, that order was confined only to certain villages and it has no application to Eraviperoor and Kaviyoor, that will not be the position. If, as contended for by the Eraviperoor Panchayat, the whole portion of the river fell within the Eraviperoor Village, and the order dated 29 51922 did not affect the boundary of the Eraviperoor Village, the Government Order impugned in this case would be invalid, in so far as it attempted to change the boundaries between Panchayats, which can be done only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by S.3 of (he Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960. If the impugned order is invalid for the above reason it is open for the Government to take action under S.3 of the Act. 3. If the impugned order is invalid for the above reason it is open for the Government to take action under S.3 of the Act. 3. In O.P. No. 4829 of 1971, the dispute is between the Ranni Pazhavangadi Panchayat, who is the petitioner, the Ranni Panchayat (Thottamon); and the river concerned is Pampa. The facts are more or less the same, except that in this case the State Government has filed a counter-affidavit that the river bed adjoining the Ranni Panchayat (Thottamon) has been for a very long time in the possession and enjoyment of the said Panchayat. In all other respects the considerations that arise in both the cases are the same. 4. There was another case in this Court, O.P. No. 3985 of 1971, which was concerned with a similar dispute between two Panchayats lying on opposite sides of the Manimala river. That case was disposed of by Subramonian Poti, J. by his judgment dated 17th August, 1972. There is one difference in that case viz., the right of the petitioner in that case had been adjudicated by a civil court. Still, the learned judge directed the status quo as per the order impugned in these cases to be maintained, and the dispute to be decided by the Government, with the observation that the Government can alter the boundaries of the Panchayat if found necessary by taking appropriate proceedings under S.3 of the Act. In a case of dispute on title and possession, as is the case before me, normally the parties should be referred to a civil action. But in the light of the specific provisions in the Kerala Panchayats Act and also in view of the fact that two local bodies should not be allowed to litigate each other, if possible, I respectfully follow the line adopted by Subramonian Poti, J. and direct the parties to approach the State Government for an adjudication of the disputed boundaries. The order of the State Government dated 4-8-1971 which is impugned in these two cases will stand. It also follows that the action taken by the opposing Panchayats for sale of the right to collect sand from that half of the river which adjoins them will also stand. Subject to the above observations, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Dismissed.