Judgment :- 1. The learned single judge has declared that the right of the Panchayat to auction out the privilege to catch fish will not extend to the area connected with the sluices of area or areas adjacent to the land appertaining to the five sluices described in the Original Petition. The appellant, which is the Panchayat, feeling aggrieved by the said declaration has filed this appeal as it obviously affects its rights to auction fishing rights in the said area. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the view taken by the learned single judge that the proviso to S.82(1) of the Kerala Panchayats Act is attracted to the sluices and the areas nearby and that therefore the same does not vest in the Panchayat is not correct. S.82 (1) and the proviso, which are relevant for the purpose of this case, may be extracted as follows: "82. Vesting of water course, springs, reservoirs, etc. in Panchayats.-(1) All public water courses (other than rivers passing through more areas, than the Panchayat area which the Government may, by notification in the gazette, specify), springs, reservoirs, tanks, cisterns, fountains, wells, kappus, chals, standpipes and other water works (including those used by the public to such an extent as to give a prescriptive right to their use) whether existing at the commencement of this Act or afterwards made, laid, or erected and whether made, laid or erected at the cost of the Panchayat or otherwise, and also any adjacent land (not being private property) appertaining thereto shall stand transferred to, and vest in, the Panchayat: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any work which is, or is connected with, a work of irrigation or to any adjacent land appertaining to any such work." If the disputed area is covered by the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S.82. the same will not stand vested in the Panchayat. If the same does not stand vested in the Panchayat it will have no right to auction the fishing rights in the said area. So the only question for consideration is in regard to the scope and ambit of the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S.82 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, and as to whether the same is attracted to the facts of this case. 2. So the only question for consideration is in regard to the scope and ambit of the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S.82 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, and as to whether the same is attracted to the facts of this case. 2. In para 2 of the writ petition, the writ petitioners have described the factual position as follows: "The irrigation for cultivating the above paddy lands of the petitioner comprising part of the aforesaid Padasekharam is made available to the petitioners through sluices constructed by Government on bunds. The sluices have been constructed by Government on the bank of the Vembanad Olayappu Kayal and the water enters the Padasekharam through five main sluices constructed by Government as part of its minor irrigation programme for the benefit of the cultivators of the Padasekharam. These sluices are situated in the Kodamthuruth Panchayat and come under the minor irrigation department of Government" The factual statements made in this paragraph are not controverted. Thus, it becomes clear that the sluices have been constructed by the Government on the bank of Vembanad Olayappu Kayal for the purpose of enabling the letting of the water through the five sluices for the benefit of cultivators of the Padasekharam. The expression work of irrigation or irrigation work is not defined in the Kerala Panchayats Act. We find that expression 'irrigation work' has been defined in S.2 (5) of the Travancore-Cochin Irrigation Act, 1956. Clause (b) of S.2 (5) says that the irrigation work includes sluices also. Having regard to the factual statements made in Para.2 of the writ petition, which is not disputed, and the definition of the expression'irrigation work' there cannot be any doubt that the sluices constitute works of irrigation. What the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S.82 says is that the vesting contemplated by sub-s. (1) shall not take place in respect of any work which is connected with a work of irrigation or of any adjacent land appertaining to any such work. Thus it is clear that the proviso gets attracted not only to the irrigation work but to any work connected with such irrigation work and also to any adjacent land appertaining to any such irrigation work. All these areas do not stand vested in the Panchayat. 3. Thus it is clear that the proviso gets attracted not only to the irrigation work but to any work connected with such irrigation work and also to any adjacent land appertaining to any such irrigation work. All these areas do not stand vested in the Panchayat. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Panchayat has not in any way meddled with the irrigation work, namely, the five sluices but it has only exercised its right of auctioning the fishing rights in the waters that flow through the sluices. But the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S.82 makes it clear that it is not only the irrigation work proper that does not vest in the Panchayat but also any work connected with such irrigation work and also any adjacent land appertaining to any such work also does not vest in the Panchayat. Thus there cannot be any doubt that the land or area reasonably close to the sluices which are irrigation works does not stand vested in the Panchayat. It is not just the point where the sluices terminate but the land or area appertaining or adjacent to the area also does not vest in the Panchayat. The object of this provision is clearly to see that the irrigation work should not suffer on account of some other agency operating near about it which may injuriously affect the irrigation work. It is precisely for this reason that the State Government took care to introduce the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S.82 to protect the irrigation works. The irrigation work can be protected not only by directing not vesting of the irrigation work in the Panchayat but also by not vesting the adjacent or appertaining area thereto in the Panchayat. We have therefore no hesitation in taking the view that the learned single judge has rightly taken the view that the land adjacent to the sluices does not stand vested in the Panchayat and that therefore the Panchayat has no right to auction the fishing rights adjacent to the sluices. As the declaration of law is consistent with the good object sought to be achieved by the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S.82 of the Panchayats Act, the question of interfering with the decision of the learned single judge does not arise. As the declaration of law is consistent with the good object sought to be achieved by the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S.82 of the Panchayats Act, the question of interfering with the decision of the learned single judge does not arise. We would like to make it clear that the declaration of law so made in this case to the effect that the Panchayat does not have the right to auction the fishing rights near the sluices does not have the effect of declaring that the petitioners in the writ petition have such a right of fishing. No such declaration has been made by the learned single Judge. As the area in question does not stand vested in the Panchayat it is for State Government to exercise its control and regulate the activity in the area adjacent thereto for the purpose of protecting the irrigation work in a very satisfactory manner. 4. Shri Govind Bharathan, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that almost a similar question has been decided by this Court in Second Appeal No. 513 of 1982 and that a similar declaration has been made in the said decision, which stands affirmed by the Supreme Court in S. L. P. No. 7504 of 1983 the same having been dismissed on 27-3-1983. For the reasons stated above this writ appeal fails and is dismissed.