The Nayarambalam Panchyat vs The Naraekal Panchayat and Others

M.P Menon J.

The dispute between the petitioner (Nayarmblam Panchayat) and the 1st respondent (Narakkal Panchayat) is about sharing of the income from a Matsyakappu (a water-logged area used for prawn-fishing). The Dy. Director of Panchayats gave Ext P4 d''cison. in exorcise of power under See 45 [I ] of the Panchayats Act, holding that the income derived from fishing was to be apportioned in the ratio of 21:6. His was a simple approach: as per official records, an extent of 20 64 acres of the Kappu was within the limits of Nayaramblam, and 6.01 acres, within Narakkal, and the income was therefore to be enjoyed proportionately. The Nayaramblam Panchayat took up the matter before Government, under Sub-sec [3] of Sec 45; and its main contention was that about 1.5 acres out of the 6.01 acres in Narakkal limits had been converted into a road-cum-bund; the real fishing area within the limits of that Panchayat was thus different from the one registered in the Government records of 1968. There was also a contention that by reason of the vesting of poramboke lands in the Panchayats, under Sec.82 of the Act, another 1.83 acres had to be added as part of the fishing area within the limits of the Nayaramblam Panchayat. But'' the Government was not disposed to depart from the measurements of 1968. As for the road-cum-bund, Government was of the view that the bund was put up partly at least in the interests of prawn fishing also. Something constructed in a Panchayat to maintain or facilitate fishing could not be put against it so as to deprive it of its due share. Government however found that there were yielding coconut trees on the bund; and the final decision in Ext. P7 was therefore to the effect that the two times of income should be Pooled together and divided in the ratio fixed by the Dy. Director.

The challenge is to Ext. P7, and the main ground is that it is arbitrary because on actual measurement, it could be seen that the area within the limits of the petitioner-Panchayat will be over 22 acres.

Sec. 45(1) confers power on the Dy. Director to decide disputes between Panchayats; and Sec. 45 [3] provides that any such decision can be modified by Government in such manner as they deem fit. Even the modified decision can also be cancelled by Government "at any time", which, in my opinion, should be read as a power to be used in the public interest when conditions change. The power of the Government is thus very wide.. Though the statute uses words like "decide", "decision", "dispute" etc. it is difficult to think that the power is something exactly akin to a judicial power i.e. of declaring the rights of parties by recording findings of fact and applying legal principles thereto. It is possible that the "decision" could include a large measure of policy content also, though factors requiring objective assessments could also be there. The needs of the contending local bodies, the nature of the contribution made by each, the population involved, the price-levels of the commodities produced [where the dispute is about sharing of income, as in this case] comparative backwardness of the two local bodies based on diverse criteria, expediency depending upon local or current situations these and many other things can also enter the reckoning, besides arithmetical considerations. That is why Sub sec [3] empowers Government to take such decisions as they deem fit and also to cancel it "at any time". So long as the power is exercised in the public interest, bona fide, and honestly with the object of giving a quietus to the problem involved, the scope for judicial scrutiny will be extremely limited. There is no case that in making Ext P7 the Government had acted without bona fides or contrary to the provisions of the Act. The petition proceeds primarily on the basis that only an exact assessment of the fishing areas could have controlled the situation, I see no warrant for such a dry legalistic approach, in the language of Sec. 45; and even assuming that the respective extents are decisive in a situation like the one here, it cannot be said that Ext. P7 has ignored this consideration. The decision therein rests on extents as fixed in the official records and the total income derived from the total extent under different heads. Ext. P7 is not vitiated, in my opinion, by errors about the existence or the limits of the statutory authority''s jurisdiction or discretion. There are also no errors about understanding the legislative intents or motives. And the exercise of discretion cannot also be faulted for improper appreciation of relevant facts.

The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. No. Costs.