A gram panchayat leases a tank bed: statutory limits versus an urgent drinking-water need

The Collector cannot approve the lease as framed. The legal issues are:

• Nature of the land. 'Tank poramboke' is government land recorded in revenue accounts and, for a notified minor irrigation tank, is under the irrigation department's control. A gram panchayat's functions under Article 243G and the Eleventh Schedule include minor irrigation, water management and drinking water, but these are functions 'subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the law made by the Legislature'. A function of maintenance is not a power to alienate or lease the tank bed.
• Source of power. The panchayat's resolution and unanimous gram sabha approval are democratic mandates, not statutory authority. A gram sabha cannot confer a power the Panchayat Raj Act does not give it; an act without jurisdiction is not cured by consent.
• Effect on the tank. Leasing the bed for aquaculture, even with deepening, changes the tank's storage profile and the ayacut's reliability. The irrigation department's objection is therefore not merely procedural.

The Collector should record a reasoned order declining the lease, direct a joint inspection, and ask the panchayat and irrigation department to propose a lawful alternative within a fixed time.

The drinking-water objective can be met without alienating the tank bed. A workable package has four parts:

1. Tied grant for drinking water. Use the Fifteenth Finance Commission's tied grant for water supply and sanitation, or Jal Jeevan Mission funds, routed through the panchayat's approved action plan. This is the cleanest fit because the purpose matches the grant condition.
2. Tank renovation through MGNREGS or an irrigation department scheme. Desilting and bund repair can be funded as a labour-intensive work with a technical estimate approved by the irrigation department. This addresses the operator's apparent value addition without a lease.
3. Fisheries in the water spread, not the tank bed. If the tank holds water, fishing rights can be auctioned for a season under the irrigation department's rules, with a revenue share to the panchayat. This captures part of the ₹6 lakh offer while preserving storage and the ayacut.
4. A written phasing plan. Do not leave the panchayat with a refusal and no alternative; attach a month-wise schedule and a named officer.

Crucially, the alternative must not be presented as a workaround that achieves the same illegal result. The test is whether the tank's storage and the ayacut are protected, not whether the panchayat receives ₹6 lakh.

I would separate the legal conclusion from the political handling. The legal conclusion is that the lease cannot be approved; that should be recorded in a speaking order that cites the land record, the tank notification, the panchayat's statutory functions and the irrigation department's objection. A one-line rejection would invite litigation and erode trust.

The process would be:

• Meet the gram sabha, not only the sarpanch. Explain in the local language why the tank bed cannot be leased and what the tank's failure in four of five years actually implies for storage and recharge.
• Bring the irrigation department to the table. Ask for a joint inspection and a written opinion on desilting and bund repair, so the panchayat hears the technical constraint from the department that will fund the work.
• Announce the alternative and a date. A refusal coupled with a funded water-supply route is defensible; a refusal alone is not.
• Keep the aquaculture operator out of the decision. The operator's offer to deepen the tank is not a consideration that can cure the legal defect, and allowing negotiations to continue would undermine the order.

The aim is to enforce the statute without treating an elected body as an adversary, while making clear that unanimous resolutions do not override jurisdiction.