Judgment :- 1. This is a petition on behalf of a Madrassa by its president and secretary. The only question for decision is whether respondents Nos.1 to 3 have power under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act 1957 (Act 8 of 1958) to take proceedings for eviction of encroachments over roads vested in Panchayats under S.62 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960. The short facts are: the Madrassa established a Bhandarakutty for collecting offerings at a junction where a Panchayat road leading to a mosque branches off from the Muvattupuzha Kothamangalam public road. This according to Ext. P1 order passed by the 3rd respondent is an unauthorised occupation under the Land Conservancy Act. It is alleged in the petition that the Bhandarakutty was established in 1950 in the place where it stands. The petitioners question the jurisdiction and authority of respondents Nos.1 to 3 to take proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act. They rely on S.62 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960. The 4th respondent Panchayat supports the stand taken by the petitioners. In the counter affidavit sworn by the Executive Officer on behalf of the Panchayat it is stated that the Panchayat has approved the occupation. 2. It is necessary to read S.62(1) and 62(1A) of the Panchayat Act as well as S.3(2) of the Land Conservancy Act: "62. Vesting of public roads in Panchayats. (1) All public roads in any Panchayat area other than roads classified as National Highways, State Highways 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-s. (1) or sub-s. (3) shall, from the date of such vesting, be the rights and liabilities of the Panchayat." S. 3(2) of the Land Conservancy Act: (2) All unassessed lands within the limits of private estates used or reserved for public purposes or for the communal use of villagers, and all public roads and streets vested in any local authority shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the property of Government." The argument on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 3 is that even in respect of public roads and streets vested in any local authority, they can take proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act, since it is provided in sub-s. (2) of S.3 of that Act that for the purpose of the said Act such roads and streets shall be deemed to be the property of Government. But, it is doubtful whether S.3(2) of the Land Conservancy Act can be called in aid by respondents Nos.1 to 3, in the manner they have done in this case, after sub-s. (1A) of S.62 was introduced in the Panchayats Act by the Kerala Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1967 (22 of 1967). In Purapuzha Panchayat v. State of Kerala (1972 KLT. 325) Govindan Nair J. (as be then was) held: "There can be little doubt that after the amendment by virtue of the wording of S.62(1) (misprinted in the reports as S.62(A)) as amended and by virtue of 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 1111967, the date on which the amendment came into operation." The question before Govindan Nair J. was whether the above mentioned result could be taken to have happened even earlier from 11 1962, on which the decision was against the Panchayat. The matter was taken up in appeal in W. A. No. 163 of 1972, (1974 KLT. 1) and the division bench in which I was also a party dismissed the appeal. The matter was taken up in appeal in W. A. No. 163 of 1972, (1974 KLT. 1) and the division bench in which I was also a party dismissed the appeal. On this question the division bench did not express any view because it was thought quite unnecessary to express any views as to whether after the amendment of 1111967 the ownership itself will stand transferred with all rights and liabilities to the Panchayat. 3. One of the rights of Government under the Land Conservancy Act is to set in motion the machinery provided by that Act for removal of encroachment over or unauthorised occupation of public roads and streets vested in a local authority, deeming such roads and streets to be Government ;property. Under sub-s. (1A) of S.62 of the Panchayats Act all rights, including the right to proceed against unauthorised occupation became the rights of the Panchayat. This is all the more so in view of the Kerala Panchayats (Removal of Encroachments and Imposition and Recovery of Penalties for unauthorised Occupation) Rules, 1964. These rules enable the Panchayat to take action against unauthorised occupation of lands vested in it as well as belonging to it. R.3 provides for imposition of fines and R.4 for eviction. However, I do not think that I should go to the extent of holding that S.3(2) of the Land Conservancy Act has been impliedly repealed by subsections (1) and (1A) of S.62 of the Panchayats Act, as contended for by Mr. Parameswara Panicker on behalf of the petitioner. It is a rule of interpretation of statutes to avoid, as far as possible, the application of the principle: Leges posteriores priores conirarias abrogant (later laws abrogate prior contrary laws). Therefore, the attempt should be to reconcile the two provisions, S.3(2) of the Land Conservancy Act and sub-s. (1A) of S.62 of the Panchayats Act. If both the provisions can be enforced concurrently, an unauthorised occupier is liable to be proceeded against both by the Panchayat as well as by the Government simultaneously, one under the Panchayats Act and the Rules thereunder, and the other under the Land Conservancy Act. (And what would happen when one of them treats the occupation as non objectionable, it having permitted the same, and the other as unauthorised, having not given such permission). Such an intent could not be attributed to the Legislature. (And what would happen when one of them treats the occupation as non objectionable, it having permitted the same, and the other as unauthorised, having not given such permission). Such an intent could not be attributed to the Legislature. I think the provisions can be reconciled by reading S.3(2) of the Land Conservancy Act subject to S.62(1A) of the Panchayats Act. So read the Government can step in invoking the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act only with the concurrence of the Panchayat. 4. The 4th respondent before me is the Panchayat and so far as the 4th respondent is concerned, as already stated, it has approved the establishment of the Bhandarakutty by a resolution passed by the Panchayat which is evidenced in this case by Ext. P4. So long as the Panchayat has no objection and they have approved the establishment of the Bhandarakutty I am of the view that respondents Nos.1 to 3 are not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act in respect of the Bhandarakutty in question. 5. I allow this original petition and quash Exts. P1, P2 and P5 orders passed by respondents Nos. 3, to 1 respectively. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.