Srikrishna, C.J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge in OP No. 17509/1995 directing the second respondent Director of Panchayath to act upon and implement the resolution (Ext.P3) dated 20-4-1993 and thereby grant release of the land which is the subject matter of the petition after charging the amount as per rules by way of transfer of assignment, keeping in mind the recommendations of the District Panchayat Officer (Ext.P4) dated 24-5-1993.

2. The facts necessary for deciding this appeal are as follows:-

3. The first respondent owns 20 cents of land in survey No. 2250/2 was in possession of 11.5 cents of land adjacent thereto in survey No. 721/1 of Moonnilavu Village for more than 40 years as in the year 1993. The said 11.5 cents of land of which he was in possession lies on the bank of a river called Kadavumpuzha. The said 11.5 cents of land has been under the uninterrupted possession of the first respondent and his predecessors in title for more than a century. The Melukavu Panchayat made an attempt top take possession of this property. The first respondent filed a petition before the Deputy Director of Panchayath which was allowed on 26.3.1993. The first respondent filed respondent filed a representation dated 19-3-1993 (Ext.P2) and requested the second respondent Panchayat to take steps to assign the said 11.5 cents of land to the first respondent. The first respondent pointed out that the said 11.5 cents of land water was always under the adverse possession and occupation of the first respondent for almost half a century and, before him, under the adverse possession and control of his predecessor in interest. Thus, he was entitled to claim title to the said land by adverse possession. He also pointed out that it was essential for him to take steps on this land so that his other land could be protected against soil erosion due to flow of the river Kadavupuzha. It was also pointed out that the Kadavupuzha river takes a very sharp bend at the point of the first respondent's property, causing damage to the property of the first respondent, which might also cause danger to the Moonnilavu - Vakakkad bridge. So, for reasons of better enjoyment of his property, and also to ensure that he able to take steps on the said land, the first respondent made representation to the Panchayath.

4. This representation of the first respondent was considered by the panchayath and Panchayath passed a unanimous resolution on 20-4-1993(Ext.P3). By this resolution, the Panchayat noted all facts including the fact that the land in question was in continued adverse possession of the first respondent, that the Panchayath did not have much benefit by getting the land from the persons who were than 40 years, that the river flows down a bend at the said land which might destroy the peramboke alnd by soil erosion and it might also affect the nearby building and also the Moonilavu – Vakakkad bridge some time in future. Considering all these facts, the Panchayat took a conscious decision that, as it was not in a position to construct protective walls to avoid danger, the Panchayat should assign the said 11.5. cents of land to the first respondent keeping the way for lorry passage to the river along the said land, upon payment of charges in accordance with rules and after receiving permission of the Director of Panchayat, the second appellant. The Panchayat also resolved that the Director of Panchayat be requested through Kottayam District Panchayat Officer to accord sanction for release of the said land.

5. The District Panchayath Officer made detailed investigation and by his recommendation - cum - report dated 24-5-1993 (Ext.P4) found that all the facts narrated in the resolution of the Panchayath had resolved that the land would be given away only after receiving the amount as per the rules. He also noted that the Committee of the Panchayat had resolved that the land would be given away only after receiving the am