Judgment : The 4th respondent, a public sector petroleum company, needed certain lands for the purpose of the construction of an oil tank storage complex. An item of land in kanayannur Taluk was identified fro that purpose. The Tahsildar wrote to the first petitioner panchayat, requiring its consent for assignment, since that item of land was one that vested in that panchyat. On 8.9.1987, the panchayat resolved to transfer that land to the company for value to be determined by the Tahsildar. Since that was getting held up, the panchayat moved this court and obtained a direction to the government to finalise the issue of payment by the company to the panchayat. Since nothing turned out even three years after the aforesaid judgment, the panchayat, though its counsel, wrote to the secretary to government that appropriate action be taken. 2. More than six months thereafter, the impugned Ext.P16 is issued by the government secretary, the counsel for the petitioners stating that the “claim of the panchayat for land value is absurd and all the more absurd is the action of the panchayat in having filed a writ petition using tax payers’ and Government grant against the same Government, that had vested the land in first place.” That statement is made on the premise that the land in question is thodu puramboke (river bed not belonging to any private party) and its vesting in the panchayat gives only vestiture rights and not ownership rights. It is also stated in that communication that law also provides for assuming the administration of the vested lands after consulting with the panchayat and not with concurrence. It was stated that the value of the land could be claimed only by a person, who has ownership right and that thodu puramboke being government land, Government has the indisputable right to divest land and dispose of it in the manner they deem fit and land value, if any, realized would go to the consolidated fund of the State. This writ petition is filed by the panchayat challenging the decision contained in that communication. 3. In the first place, when this court had directed the government to take a decision, that was not a matter to be slept over for three years. When a reminder was placed, it required expeditious disposal. That also did not happen. The matter was dragged for another six months. 4. 3. In the first place, when this court had directed the government to take a decision, that was not a matter to be slept over for three years. When a reminder was placed, it required expeditious disposal. That also did not happen. The matter was dragged for another six months. 4. What came out ultimately, to be put modestly; is nothing but overzealous and unwarranted reaction. The repeated use of the word ‘absurd’ in the government communication does not befit the facts of this case, even if it were to come in private. I say this as a prelude to what would be noticed hereunder. 5. The materials on record and the narration of facts relating to the request for property for the purpose of the petroleum company would show that such proceedings commenced sometimes in early 1987. Then, Section 82(1) of the Kerala Panchayats Act 1960, hereinafter referred to as the “1960 Act”, provided among other things, for the vesting of water courses, springs, reservoirs, etc and also any adjacent land (not being private property) appertaining thereto, in the panchayat, and that such property shall stand transferred to and vest in the panchayat. This is the effect of that provision by virtue of the amendment brought to the 1960 Act by Act 22 of 1967. That amending Act also dealt with Section 62, relating to vesting of rights over road purambokes. That change in statute law and its impacts on title to such property were pithily, noticed by this court in Purupuzha Panchayats v. State of Kerala and Others (1972 KLT 325) dealing with the vesting of roads. Section 82 itself fell for direct consideration of this court in Erattupetta Panchayat v. Tahsildar, Meenachil and Others(1980 KLT 843) which specifically laid down that after the amendment as per Act 22 of 1967, the entire right stood transferred, as a consequence of which, the panchayat has the right to sell the trees standing on the river puramboke. In that case, government was directed not to take any action against the panchyat or auction any trees under the panchayat. In that case, government was directed not to take any action against the panchyat or auction any trees under the panchayat. Later, in Akalakunnam Panchayat V. State of Kerala (1986 KLT 441), the proposition of law as noticed above, was reiterated after stating, as a preface, that what arose for decision in that case is the of repeated controversy relating to the effect of vesting and transfer of rod and thodu purambokes to panchayats under the provisions of Sections 62(1) and 82 (1) of the 1960 Act. Noticing all the aforesaid decisions, a Division Bench of this court laid down in State of Kerala V. Padinharethara Panchayat (1987 (2) KLT 441) that after the amendment to the 1960 Act by Act 22 of 1967, the entire rights in the river puramboke stood transferred to the panchayat, as a consequence of which, panchayat got right to sell the trees standing on the river puramboke. Again, in State of Kerala V. kulakkada panchayat (1988(1) KLT115), the Division Bench stated that in Akalakunnam panchayat (supra), it was held that there is an absolute transfer of totality of all the rights in favour of panchayat, by virtue of the amendment by Act 22 of 1967. The Bench also noticed the earlier Division Bench judgment noticed above. 6. All the aforesaid decisions held the filed as law declared by this court when Ext.P14 judgment was issued by this court after adverting to the facts and requiring the government to address itself, including on the fixation of value of the land to be transferred. In fact, the learned Judge had also referred to Akalakunnam Panchayat’s case (supra) in Ext.P14. It is about the writ petition disposed of as per that judgment, that the government secretary has said in the impugned communication that it was absurd for the panchayat to have filed the writ petition that led to that judgment, using “tax payers” and Government grant”. It appears that the government secretary did not relish the writ petition being filed using tax payers’ and government grant “against the same Government”. As if, the Government is still the archaic concept of a feudal repository of the power to own the land. Now it lies with “we, the People” of India, as a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic. 7. Judicial propriety and discipline prompts me not to use the word ’absurd’ to described the reasoning in the impugned communication. As if, the Government is still the archaic concept of a feudal repository of the power to own the land. Now it lies with “we, the People” of India, as a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic. 7. Judicial propriety and discipline prompts me not to use the word ’absurd’ to described the reasoning in the impugned communication. Discipline is, firstly, a matter for self-imposition. It shall be so; more promptly, the higher the seat of authority. Because, greater the power; greater shall be the restraint. This is not a principle confined merely to the question of exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, but applies even in the matter of propriety and decorum in official functioning; be it in the administrative, legislative or judicial wings of the State. 8. With the aforesaid, the impugned decision has necessarily to go. 9. But, what is more important is the management of the issues that is still left unresolved for the last more than two decades. With the passage of time, the 1960 Act has given way to the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as “1994 Act”. 10. As already noticed, the panchayat has the absolute right over the land in question, by the operation of Section 62 of the 1960 Act, as amended by Act 22 of 1967. Section 284(2) (a) of 1994 Act provides, among other things, that all movable and immovable properties and all interest of whatsoever kind therein, that stood vested in an existing Panchayat as on the date of coming into force of the 1994 Act, shall be deemed to be transferred to, and shall vest in the successor panchayat, subject to all limitations, conditions and rights or interests of any person, body or authority in force or subsisting immediately before the appointed day. Therefore, the quality of title of the first petitioner panchayat over the land in question as on today is nothing but the entire right, title and interest which vested in it as attendant to the transfer in its favour by operation of Section 62 of the 1960 Act. Therefore, as of now, the property stands vested absolutely as an item transferred to it, and can be dealt with only in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Acquisition and disposal of Property) Rules, 2005. 11. Therefore, as of now, the property stands vested absolutely as an item transferred to it, and can be dealt with only in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Acquisition and disposal of Property) Rules, 2005. 11. The 4th respondent, being a public company and the first petitioner being the panchayat within whose limits the petroleum storage tank facilities have been brought by the said company, would have only goals of public interest to achieve. It is, therefore, appropriate that they settle the disputes and arrive at a consensus in terms of the aforesaid Rules with the junction of any competent authority as may be required and prescribed under those rules and in accordance with those so that the value of the land would be fixed and transfer effected without delay. If the involvement of the Government is required for such purpose, the first petitioner and the 4th respondent company would be at liberty to seek such intervention which would be promptly made by the Government. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed, quashing Ext.P16 and directing as aforesaid. No costs.