Antony Dominic, J.

1. Petitioner challenges Exts.P2 to P4 and P8. He also seeks a declaration that the proceedings initiated against him under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act are illegal and unsustainable.

2. Ext.P2 is a notice issued by the second respondent, exercising his powers under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and calling upon the petitioner to appear before him for an enquiry, in connection with the alleged unauthorised removal of river sand from the bed of the Achankovil river. According to the petitioner, without conducting any enquiry, Ext.P3 order was passed directing him to remit an amount of ` 1,05,200/- towards the value of the river sand, royalty and fine. Against this order, petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal before the District Collector, which was rejected by Ext.P8 order. It is challenging these proceedings, this Writ Petition is filed with the prayers mentioned above.

3. Main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Achankovil river is one vested in the fourth respondent Panchayat by virtue of S.218 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and, therefore, the proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act initiated against him are without jurisdiction.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein the factual contentions raised by the petitioner are disputed. It is stated that, in response to Ext.P2 notice, though the petitioner appeared, he did not file any objection and it was in those circumstances, Ext.P3 order was issued. It is also stated that the petitioner had unauthorisedly removed and sold more than 100 loads of river sand from Achankovil river and that it was therefore proceedings were initiated culminating in Exts.P3 and P8 orders. It is also contended that even in spite of S.218 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, by virtue of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, the second respondent was justified in initiating the proceedings and passing the impugned orders.

5.1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the counsel appearing for the respondents. The main contention raised is regarding the competence of the respondents for initiating proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. S.218 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act provides for the vesting of water courses, springs, reservoirs, etc. in Village Panchayats. This Section reads thus:-

"218. Vesting of water course, springs, reservoirs, etc., in Village Panchayats.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 (8 of 1958) or in any other law for the time being in force, all public water courses (other than rivers passing through more areas, than the Panchayat area which the Government may, by notification in the Gazette, specify), the beds and banks of rivers, streams, irrigation and drainage channels, canals, lakes, back waters and water courses and all standing and flowing water, springs, reservoirs, tanks, cisterns, fountains, wells, kappus, chals, stand pipes and other water works including those used by the public to such an extent as to give a prescriptive right to their use whether existing at the commencement of this Act or afterwards made, laid or erected and whether made, laid or erected at the cost of the Panchayat otherwise, and also any adjacent land, not being private property appertaining thereto shall stand transferred to, and vest absolutely in the Village Panchayat:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any work which is, or is connected with, a work or irrigation or to any adjacent land appertaining to any such work.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, all rights and liabilities of the Government in relation to the water courses, springs, reservoirs, tanks, cisterns, fountains, wells, kappus, chals, stand pipes and other water works vested in the Village Panchayat under sub-section (1) shall from the date of such vesting, be the rights and li