Judgment :- 1. We are satisfied that the appellant has not made out any case for interference. The Purappuzha Panchayat gave notice on 6-6-1967 to sell 75 trees standing on roads, which, under S.62 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, had become vested in the Panchayat. These were auctioned on 24-7-1967 for a sum of over Rs. 30,000/- and the auction was bid by the 4th Respondent. This landed him in difficulties with the Government. There was O.P. 2517 of 1967 filed in this Court by the Panchayat, which resulted in Ext. P3 judgment dated 23-7-1969. By the date of that judgment. S.62 of the Panchayats Act had undergone an amendment with effect from 1-11-1967. The amended Section reads as follows: "62. Vesting of public roads in Panchayats. (1) All public roads in any Panchayat area other than roads classified as National Highways, State High ways or district roads, shall stand transferred to, and vest, in the Panchayat together with all pavements, stones and other materials thereof, all works, materials and other things provided therefor, all sewers, drains, drainage works, tunnels and culverts, whether made at the cost of the Panchayat fund or otherwise, in, alongside or under such roads, and all works, materials and things appertaining thereto. (1A) Subject to the provisions of this Act, all rights and liabilities of the Government in relation to the public roads and other properties, materials and things vested in the Panchayat under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall, from the date of such vesting, be the rights and liabilities of the Panchayat. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (1A), the Government may at any time, by notification in the Gazette, exclude from the operation of this Act any such public road, sewer, drain, drainage work, tunnel or culvert and may also modify or cancel such notification, and thereupon they shall revest in Government: Provided that, before issuing such a notification, the Government shall consult the Panchayat concerned and give due regard to its objections, if any. (3) The Government may, by notification in the Gazette, order the transfer to, and vesting in, a Panchayat, of any public road or class of public roads in the Panchayat and thereupon such road or roads shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s. (1), but subject to the other provisions of this Act, stand transferred to, and vest ia, such Panchayat." In Ext. P3 judgment, Mathew J. of this Court (as he then was) after noticing sub-s. 1A observed: "It would appear from the above provisions that all the rights and liabilities of the Government in respect of the land in question vested in the Panchayat with retrospective effect from the date of the vesting of the land, namely, 1-1-1962. So, the view of the Collector in Ext. F8 letter would require reconsideration. If by virtue of S.62 (1A), the rights and liabilities of the Government in relation to the land became vested in the Panchayat with retrospective effect, the ownership of the trees must be deemed to have vested in the Panchayat at the time of the auction. I would, therefore, quash Ext. P8 and direct the Collector to consider the matter afresh, taking into consideration the effect of the amendment referred to above. The Collector will pass the order within six weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order." The Collector thereupon passed Ext. P4 order holding that the ownership of roads and trees on either side of the road vested in the Government, and that the Panchayat bad no manner of administrative jurisdiction and ownership over these. He accordingly declared the auction held as invalid and directed a fresh auction by the Executive Engineer, Buildings and Roads. The Panchayat filed a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed by a learned judge, against whose decision, this writ appeal has been preferred. 2. The learned judge was of the view that having regard to the fact that the auction was held prior to the amendment of S.62 with effect from 1-11-1967, the matter was governed by the Section as it stood before that date, and under the Section as it then was, the Panchayat had no right except for the limited purpose of administration. It was stressed before the learned judge that the amendment effected in the Section with effect from 1-11-67 was clarificatory and therefore retrospective and that the rights and liabilities stood transferred from 1-1-1962. The learned judge found it difficult to accept this argument and stated: "S. 62 (1A) only clarifies what is meant by'vesting'. S.62 (1A) has admittedly no retrospective effect. The learned judge found it difficult to accept this argument and stated: "S. 62 (1A) only clarifies what is meant by'vesting'. S.62 (1A) has admittedly no retrospective effect. It cannot possibly refer to a vesting before 1-11-1967." The learned judge noticed the decision in Writ Appeal No. 22 of 1969 (Meenachil Panchayat v. Chacko Devassy) by a Division Bench of this Court regarding S.82 (i) of the Panchayats Act, similarly worded as S.62 (1). Having noticed that the vesting contemplated by that Section also was only for the purpose of maintenance and control, the learned judge proceeded to observe: "There can be little doubt that after the amendment by virtue of the wording of S.62(1) as amended and by of virtue 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 1-11-1967 the date on which the amendment came into operation. The question is whether by virtue of sub-section (1A) of S.62 it is right to assume that there has been a transfer and vesting not from 1-11-1967 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." We agree with the learned judge that Ext. P3 judgment did not express any final and concluded opinion on this question. But we think it quite unnecessary to express ourselves as to whether after the amendment of 1-11-1967 the ownership itself will stand transferred with all rights and liabilities to the Panchayat. We guard ourselves against expressing any opinion on the point and should not be understood as having done so. 3. The auction in this case having been on 24-7-1967 (before the amendment) is governed by S.62 in its pre-amended state. It was ruled in Tholur Panchayat v. The District Collector, Trichur (1967 KLT. 722) by one of us that the vesting contemplated by the Section was only for the limited purpose of local administration. With that view, the learned judge has himself agreed in the judgment under appeal. The view was also upheld in Writ Appeal No. 32/1969 by a Division Bench (Raman Nayar C J. & Mathew J.). 722) by one of us that the vesting contemplated by the Section was only for the limited purpose of local administration. With that view, the learned judge has himself agreed in the judgment under appeal. The view was also upheld in Writ Appeal No. 32/1969 by a Division Bench (Raman Nayar C J. & Mathew J.). Agreeing with the said view, we hold that the Panchayat did not acquire any right of property in the roads or in the trees standing thereon. 4. It was also ruled in Writ Appeal No. 22 of 1969 that the amendment by Act 22 of 1967 by which the water courses etc. shall stand transferred to the Panchayat concerned, was not declaratory in character or otherwise retrospective. We are in agreement with the said view. Not being declaratory, and not being retrospective, the appellant in this case is bound to fail, and we need not say anything further on the question as to whether after the amendment effected to the Section with effect from 1-11-1967, the rights of property in public roads, water courses etc., also stand transferred to the Panchayat, or otherwise. 5. We dismiss this appeal, but without costs.