Judgment :- 1. The oft repeated controversy relating to the effect of vesting and transfer of road and thodu purambokes to Panchayats under the provisions of S.62 (1) and S.82 (1) of the Kerala Panchayat Act arises for consideration in this original petition. 2. By a notice dated 25-4-1981, the third respondent - Tahsildar, Kottayam, requested the petitioner-Panchayat to publish 16 notices issued under R.12 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. Those 16 notices related to road and thodu purambokes within the Panchayat. The Panchayat gave a reply Ext. P-1 dated 2-6-1981, stating that the concerned purambokes have statutorily vested in the Panchayat, and therefore, the Panchayat alone has got the right to assign or otherwise deal with those plots of lands. Reference was also made to the judgments of this court in O. P. No. 2978 of 1967 dated 20-12-1967 and O P. No. 4459 of 1979 dated 1-10-1980. On receipt of the objection, the third respondent-Tahsildar requested the petitioner-Panchayat to forward copies of these two judgments by Ext. P-2 letter. Those copies were produced along with Ext. P-3 letter dated 8-7-1981. The Panchayat did not hear anything further about the matter It was reasonably apprehended that the third respondent may proceed with the assignment without considering the objections of the Panchayat or affording it an opportunity of being heard on Ext. P-1 objections. This original petition was filed at that stage, seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the 16 notices issued to the third respondent, and a declaration that all the road and thodu purambokes within the area of operation of the petitioner-Panchayat had vested in the Panchayat under S.62 and 82 of the Panchayats Act, and that the Revenue Department and the respondents had ceased to have any interest over such lands. Other incidental reliefs are also sought by the petitioner-Panchayat. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is admitted that some at least of the 16 plots proposed to be assigned under R.12 (1) of the Land Conservancy Rules by the third respondent had already been handed over to the Panchayat. The other purambokes not having been so transferred, the third respondent is said to be within jurisdiction in having required the petitioner-Panchayat to publish the notices under R.12 (1) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. The other purambokes not having been so transferred, the third respondent is said to be within jurisdiction in having required the petitioner-Panchayat to publish the notices under R.12 (1) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. It is contended on behalf of the respondents, that absolute right over the property is not vested in the Panchayat under S.62 and 82 of the Act. It is claimed that What was vested was only the management. It is also stated that even though the respondents were competent to assign the lands concerned, no action had been taken to assign the lands in question after receipt of objections from the Panchayat. 4. In view of the assertion contained in the counter-affidavit that only limited management and not absolute right over road and thodu purambokes had vested in the Panchayat by reason of the provisions contained in S.62 and 82 of the Act, it seems to be necessary that the points must be clarified. 5. Counsel for the petitioner referred to the decisions of this court reported in 1972 KLT 325, 1974 KLT 136 and 1980 KLT 843, in support of his submission that S.62 and 82 of the Kerala Panchayats Act as it stands at present, vest absolute rights in the Panchayat and therefore, the revenue authorities have no right to assign or otherwise deal with the properties. Counsel for the respondents refers to the decision reported in 1982 KLT 252 to sustain his submission that it should be specifically pleaded and proved that the area falling within the Panchayat and specifically covered by the provisions of S.82 of the Act alone can be treated as vested in the Panchayat. 6. In Parupuzha Panchayat v. State of Kerala, 1972 KLT 325, Govindan Nair J., as he then was, had to deal with S.62 of the Kerala Panchayats Act before and after its amendment. The provision dealt with vesting of public roads in Panchayats. The unamended provision provided that all public roads within the Panchayat area, other than those which were exempt, "shall vast in the Panchayat together with all pavements, stones and other materials" etc. After the amendment of S.62, it provided that all public roads etc., "shall stand transferred to and vest in the Panchayat together with alt pavements" etc. The unamended provision provided that all public roads within the Panchayat area, other than those which were exempt, "shall vast in the Panchayat together with all pavements, stones and other materials" etc. After the amendment of S.62, it provided that all public roads etc., "shall stand transferred to and vest in the Panchayat together with alt pavements" etc. Sub-section (1A) of S.62, which was newly introduced, provided, that "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". It was held by this court, that the vesting prior to the amendment "can only be a vesting for maintenance and control, and cannot give right to sell trees standing in the property as has been done by the Panchayat", and that, "there can be little doubt that after the amendment by virtue of the wording of S.62 (1), 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". 7. That decision was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Purappuzha Panchayat v. State of Kerala, 1974 KLT 1. Gopalan Nambiar J., as he then was, speaking for the Bench, found that vesting under S.62 of the Act was the same as vesting of communal property or income of the Panchayat as provided in S.64 of the Act. It was, therefore, held that "vesting contemplated by the section before its amendment" was only for the limited purpose of local administration, and "therefore, the Panchayat did not acquire any right of property in the roads or in the trees standing thereon". It was also held, that the amendment of S.62, by Act 22 of 1967, was not declaratory in character or otherwise retrospective. Reference was also made to the decision reported in Tholur Panchayat v. District Collector. It was also held, that the amendment of S.62, by Act 22 of 1967, was not declaratory in character or otherwise retrospective. Reference was also made to the decision reported in Tholur Panchayat v. District Collector. Trichur 1967 KLT 722, where Gopalan Nambiar J., held, that "S. 64 of the Act, which provides for vesting of communal property or income in the Panchayat, provides that the said vesting is to be administered by it, for the benefit of the villagers or holders aforesaid. The context seems to be that the vesting is to be only for the purpose of administration by the Panchayat". 8. Vadakkel J., had to consider the same question again in Mohammed v. Board of Revenue, 1974 KLT 134. Dealing with the alleged conflict between S.3 (2) of the Land Conservancy Act and S.62 (1A) of the Kerala Panchayats Act, it was observed: "It is doubtful whether S.3 (2) of the Land Conservancy Act can be called in aid by respondents 1 to 3, after sub-s. (1A) of S.62 was introduced in the Panchayats Act by Act 22 of 1967. It is a rule of interpretation of statutes to avoid as far as possible, the application of the principle; "later laws abrogate prior contrary laws". Therefore, the attempt should be to reconcile the two provisions. 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, 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". 9. In Erattupetta Panchayat v. Tahsildar, Meenachil, 1980 KLT 843, Khalid J., as he then was, followed the decision of Govindan Nair, J. in 1972 KLT 325. In that decision, the question which fell for consideration was whether the Panchayat was entitled to sell in public auction a tree which stood in a river puramboke within the Panchayat. The tree fell down in 1979. Khalid 3., as he then was, observed: "The rights of the Panchayat regarding river purambokes stand considerably altered by the Amendment Act 22 of 1967; under which the vesting of water course, springs etc. The tree fell down in 1979. Khalid 3., as he then was, observed: "The rights of the Panchayat regarding river purambokes stand considerably altered by the Amendment Act 22 of 1967; under which the vesting of water course, springs etc. mentioned originally in S.62 and 82 have been additionally mentioned as "shall stand transferred to and vest in the Panchayat" were substituted for the words "vest in the Panchayat and shall be subject to its control "by the Amendment Act 22 of 1967. The amendment to S.82 came into force with effect from 1-11-1967. The stand of the first respondent could have been justified if the tree fell before the Amendment Act 22 of 1967". 10. The trend of these decisions is unmistakable. The totality of the rights specified in the classes of purambokes roads and thodu purambokes mentioned in S.62, and river purambokes etc., mentioned in S.82 stood transferred to the Panchayats concerned. Vesting was only for purposes of management and maintenance formerly. It became an absolute transfer of the totality of all rights in favour of the Panchayat by virtue of the amendment effected by Act 22 of 1967. The thodu purambokes with which we are concerned in this original petition and in relation to which the 16 notices were issued under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, stood transferred to and vested in the Panchayat, with effect from 1-11-1967. Counsel for the respondents relies on the decision in Mattool Panchayat v. Abdurahim,1982 KLT 252. Balakrishna Menon J., held in that decision, with reference to river puramboke attached to Baliapattam river, that S.62 does not have the effect of transferring and vesting all the purambokes in the Panchayats concerned. The earlier decisions referred to above did not fall for consideration in Mattool Panchayat's case, 1982 KLT 252. It was observed, that there was no evidence that Baliapattam river, which is one of the major rivers in the State, had vested in the Panchayat. It was also observed that "on the wording of S.82 itself, it is only such of the water courses as are mentioned therein, that would vest in the Panchayat. A major river such as the Baliapattam river does not fall under S.82. It is not shown by what other process of law the land involved in the suit which is a river puramboke has vested in the Panchayat". A major river such as the Baliapattam river does not fall under S.82. It is not shown by what other process of law the land involved in the suit which is a river puramboke has vested in the Panchayat". Those observations may not apply to the fact situation available in the present case. We are concerned with thodu purambokes which are admittedly covered by S.82. I do not understand the observation contained in that decision as applicable to the situations where the area concerned is indisputably covered by the provisions of S.82 of the Kerala Panchayats Act. 11. In the present case, there is no dispute that the lands in respect of which 16 notices under the Land Assignment Act and the rules framed thereunder were issued by the Tahsildar were thodu purambokes. As a matter of fact, it is admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that the 16 plots of land were thodu purambokes covered by S.82 of the Kerala Panchayats Act. The only dispute raised in the counter affidavit is that the vesting under S.82 of the Act was not absolute and was only for the limited purpose of management. I have held that this contention is unsustainable in view of the catena of decisions of this Court. 12. In this view, this original petition has to allowed. It is hereby declared that the road and thodu purambokes with which we are concerned have vested in the Panchayat by virtue of the provisions contained in S.62 and S.82 of the Kerala Panchayats Act. Consequently, respondents 2 to 4 will not be entitled to proceed under the Kerala Land Assignment Act and the rules made thereunder for assignment of the above puramboke lands in favour of any of the occupants, including respondents 5 and 6. The original petition is allowed as above. There will be no order as to costs.