1. The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order of the Ombudsman and the consequent resolution taken by the Panchayath to provide a pathway to the 5th respondent through the puramboke in Survey No.534/2 of Block No.30 of Rayamangalam Village. The petitioner alleges that this would result in filling up of a pond in the puramboke resulting in the water logging of his neighbouring property. It is alleged that the resolution merely seeks to provide a pathway to the property of the 5th respondent. Rough sketch showing the lie of the properties have been produced by the petitioner and the 5th respondent, which are more or less the same and Ext.P15 produced by the petitioner is referred to, in this judgment.

2. The 5th respondent who has adjacent properties to the north and south-east of the petitioner's property maintains that he has offered for surrender, land belonging to him, and that purchased by him, providing a pathway from the canal bund road lying at the western extremity, so as to provide access to the puramboke. It is his contention that as a quid pro quo the Panchayath offered him access through the puramboke, from north to south so as to reach his own property lying at the southern end. The 5th respondent's contention at first blush, seems to be above board; but the consequences of the alleged quid pro quo has to be examined in the context of the entire facts.

3. The petitioner has produced Ext.P1, which is the basic tax register, showing the puramboke comprising a pond which is described as "Government Pond"(MALAYALAM) )in Survey No.534/2 and the report of the Village Officer(Ext.P12). It is admitted by both sides that the puramboke is within the jurisdictional area of the Grama Panchayath. But all the same being a pond, it does vest with the Panchayath, is the contention of the 5th respondent.

4. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri.Renjith Thamban, appearing for the 5th respondent would rely on Section 218 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994, to contend that all rights and liabilities of the Government in relation to water courses including "standing and flowing water" shall vest with the Village-Panchayath. The pond being "standing water", it is the contention, that it vests with the Panchayath.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would counter the argument of vesting, placing reliance on the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003(for brevity, 'Act of 2003'). It is the petitioner's contention that Section 3 is a non-obstante clause deeming all water courses as the property of the Government. The definition of water course in Section 2(aq) also takes in "natural collection of water" and the Act of 2003 being a later enactment; by virtue of the non-obstante clause would prevail; is the contention. However, it is to be noticed that Section 3 of the Act of 2003 is subject to the provisions of Section 218 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994. Hence that contention of the petitioner fails, however, it is to be noticed that the contention of vesting raised by the 5th respondent is contrary to his consistent stand, as revealed from the records, that there is no pond in existence.

6. The resolution taken by the Panchayath produced as Ext.R5(e) is worded as if it is in compliance of Ext.P7 order. The 5th respondent initially filed Ext.P3 complaint before the Panchayath alleging encroachment upon the puramboke and demanding measurement of the puramboke, the properties of the petitioner and the 5th respondent. A lawyer's notice was also issued as per Ext.P4. Presumably, when no action was forthcoming, the 5th respondent filed an application before the Deputy Director of Panchayaths, Kakkanad, produced as Ext.P5, wherein the respondent Panchayath as also the petitioner were parties. This application also reiterated the reliefs earlier sought. It would be apposite to mention here that the reliefs claimed by the 5th respondent, being fixation of boundaries, could not have been granted by the local authority and