The ownership of accreted land should be determined based on the identifiable physical features of the land.

Pollock, J—The Defendant-Appellant owns a malikmakbuza field, Khasra No. 19, in mouza Bharatwada in Nagpur district. At the last settlement in 1914, it was bounded on the north by the southern bank of what may be described as a small and shallow river. Subsequently, there was an accretion because of the subsidence of this river, and this accretion which measured. 09 acres is shown by the dotted red line in the map. Later, there was a considerably larger accretion shown by the solid redline in the map. The second accretion has been numbered as Khasra No. 16/3 and has an area of 208 acres. The river-bed, which was given Khasra No. 16 at the settlement admittedly belongs to the landlord. The present river-bed is khasra No. 16/1.

2. This suit was brought on behalf of the landlord to recover possession of these two areas .09 and 2.08 acres, which have emerged on the northern boundary of the Defendant's field, and the question is whether under the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation, 1825, this forms an accretion to the Defendant's field. At first sight, cl. 1 of S. 4 of that Regulation appears to favour the Defendant's contention that this land must be considered an increment to his field. That clause runs as follows: When land may by gained by gradual accession, whether from the recess of a river or of the sea, it shall be considered an increment to the tenure of the person to whose land or estate it is thus annexed.

A limitation however has been placed on the application of this clause by the Judicial Committee. In 13 M. I. A. 467, they remarked when the whole words are looked at, not merely of that clause, but of the whole Regulation, it is quite obvious that what the then legislative authority was dealing with, was the gain which an individual proprietor might take in this way from that which was part of the public territory, the public domain not usable in the ordinary sense, that is to say, the sea belonging to the State, a public river belonging to the State.

3. That decision was approved by the Judicial Committee in 6 Pat 481. In MAHADEO V. BALESHWAR PRASAD, 1939 AIR(All) 626 at p. 029 the law deduced from these decisions was that if the land in dispute is identifiable with reference to its physical features, land marks or by measurement, it should be deemed to continue to belong to the former owner. The decision in 90 I. C. 1010 is precisely in point, and it was there held, following the decisions in 24 W. R. 317 and 26 I. C. 406, that if the bed of a river is the property of a private individual when it is submeged it remains his property when it emerges from the water. There is a decision to the contrary in 45 I. C. 929 but with great respect the decision in 90 I. C. 1010 appears to be in accordance with the decision of the Judicial Committee. If cl. 1 of S. 4 of the Regulation is to be limited in the sense they have laid down, it cannot apply in the present case, and there is then no reason why land forming part of the river bed that belonged to the landlord when submerged should cease to be his when it ceases to be sub merged. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 15.

Final Result : Dismissed