|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| THE KERALA PANCHAYAT LAW MANUAL
| | |
| Sec. 169
| |
| Panchayat and thereupon such road or roads shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), but subject to the other provisions of this Act, stand transferred to and vest in, such Village Panchayat.
| |
| Wie (5) It shall not be lawful for any persons to occupy any land which is transferred to and vested in a 82[x x] Panchayat under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4), whether a poramboke or not, without prior permission from the 82[x x] Panchayat concerned.
| |
| Explanation. For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the erection of any wall, fence or building or the putting up of any overhanging structure or projection (whether on a temporary or permanent basis) on or over any land aforesaid shall be deemed to be occupation of such land.
| |
| NOTES If a pathway is within the confines of a house, however sprawling it may be, whatever lies therein may be private in character and private in use. Once it is meant to connect somebody else's, thus becoming part of a network of roads or paths, however short or insignificant its extent and reach may be, it is to sub-serve the public purpose of providing access to and fro. Once a property assumes the character, say, a road or a path, having the potential of being a public utility, it ceases to have any exclusivity, for the individual interest is to yield to the common good. John Donne declares: No man is an island entire of itself, every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. The legislative wisdom has ensured that there should not be private fiefdoms and zones of exclusivity shutting out access to the general public. – Mariam Beevi v. Secretary, Athirampuzha Grama Panchayath, Kottayam and Others – 2015 (3) KHC 199 : 2015 (2) KLT 768 : 2015 (2) KLJ 844 : ILR 2015 (2) Ker. 976.80
| |
| In the case of public roads, which have already vested in Panchayat under Section 169(1), there need not be any separate notification by Government as contemplated by Sub-section 4. - Lilly v. Secretary to Government - 2007 (1) KLT 567 : 2007 (1) KHC 340 (AIR 1957 SC 344 Referred to; 1969 KLT 90 - Relied on.]
| |
| S.62 [corresponding to S.169 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994]– Trees standing in puramboke - Panchayat can cut and remove the land trees - The totality of 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 Panchayat concerned. The title to the tree standing in such land vested only in Panchayat and Government can have no right at all in respect of the said tree. - State of Kerala v. Kulakkada Panchayat - 1988 (1) KLT 115: 1988 (1) KLJ 27.
| |
| Ss.62 & 82 scorresponding to S. 169 & S.218 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994]- Vesting and transfer of road and thodu purambokes to Panchayats - Effect of - Is an absolute transfer of all rights in favour of the Panchayat by virtue of amendment by Act 22 of 1967 – Land Conservancy Rule, 1964 (Kerala), Rule 12 - The totality of the rights specified in the classes of purambokes roads and thodu purmabokes 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 affected by Act 22 of 1967. Consequently, respondents 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. – Akalakunnam Panchayat v. State of Kerala - 1986 KLT 441 : 1986 KLJ 284 ILR 1986 (2) Ker. 196.
| |
| Ss.62, 63, 64 & 82 [Corresponding to S.169 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994]-Vesting - Meaning and connotation of – Cls.(c) & (e) of S.82 appear to make a distinction between 'vesting' and the term 'belonging to'. The vesting contemplated by S.62 may not even be the vesting of ownership. The word 'vest' has not a fixed connotation meaning in all cases that the property is owned by the person or authority in who it vests. The property may vest in title in possession or in a limited sense, as indicated by the context in which it may have been used in particular piece of legislation. – Executive Officer, Kavilampara Panchayat v. Ammad – 1969 KLT 90 : 1969 KLJ 126: 1969 KLR 151.
| |
| {{create}}
| |
