The vesting of tanks in Gram Panchayats under Section 85(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964, does not amount to total divesting of the Government or abolition of the rights acquired by the public. The Government is empowered under Section 85(3) to resume the administration of the tank and define or limit the control vested in the Gram Panchayat.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been referred to a Bench by Jayachandra Reddy, J. , for an authoritative pronouncement on the scope of Section 85 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayates Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). It arises in the following circumstances:- In Mandapaka village there is a small tank in R. S. No. 111, with an extent of Ac. 3-84 cents. According to the Gram, Panchayat, which is the writ petitioner herein, the tank is used for the purpose of drinking water, and for cattle. The petitioner says that the village, which is having a very large Ayacut and population, exclusively depends upon four small tanks in the village for the supply of drinking water and for cattle. By virtue of Section 895 of the Act, the said tanks, including the tank in R. S. No. 111, according to the petitioner, vested in it, and the revenue authorities have no power or authority in law to assign any portion thereof to any one. In spite of the said legal position, the petitioner complains, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur, asked the Tahsildar, Tanuku, to send a a proposal for assigning an extent of Ac. 1-50 cents out of R. S. No. 111, in favor of the 4th respondent, an ex-Serviceman. Though the Gram Panchayat passed a unanimous resolution condemning the move and protesting against the diversion of communal property to private use, the respondents are not desisting from implementing their action. The Gram Panchayat, therefore, approached this Court by way of this writ petition, questioning the power and authority of the respondents 1 to 3 to assign any portion of the tank in favour of the 4th respondent.

( 2 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that, on inspection by the Deputy Collector, it was found that the tank in R. S. No. 111, though registered in the Revenue accounts as "tank Poramboke", is silted up an was not being used for any communal purpose, He, therefore, recommended that excluding the water spread area, the remaining area may be assigned to landless poor persons. Accordingly, assignment was made in favour of the 4th respondent, and on a Ch,. Anjaneyulu. It is stated that R. S. No. 111 has been duly withdrawn from the control of the Gram Panchayat by a notification under sub-section (3) of S. 85 of the Act, and the land converted from Tank Poramboke to Ayana. It is clarified that no such proposals are pending with respect to other tanks in the village. So far as the tank in R. S. No. 111 is concerned, the Gram Panchayat has no say in the matter, it is submitted, in view of the circumstances stated above.

( 3 ) WHEN the matter came up before the learned single Judge, he was satisfied, on a perusal of the report of the Tahsildar and the material placed before him, that except to an extent of 1 Acre, the tank is silted up and that, the silted up portion is in unauthorised occupation of certain persons and was not serving any communal purpose. He also noticed that there is no irrigation under this tank and that, it is away from the village. The learned Judge observed further"it is also not he case of the Gram Panchayat that the tank is being used for drinking purposes or any other communal purpose". The learned Judge then posed the question whether, even under the above circumstances, Section 85 (1) of the Act applies. Though the learned Judge was of the opinion that it does not apply, still, having regard to the fact, that the matter is of general importance, he referred the same to the Bench.

( 4 ) WE shall, therefore, proceed on the basis that, though R. S. No. 111 with an extent of Ac. 3-84 cents is registered as Tank Poramboke in the Revenue records, only an extent of Ac. 1-00 is covered by the water, whereas the remaining extent is silted up and is under the occupation of certain villagers who are described in the reports of the Revenue authorities as rich landlords of the village. The record placed before us does not make it clear whether the above