(1.) This appeal by leave is directed from a judgment of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 2702 of 1996. The question involves in this appeal is whether the right, title and interest of the tenant or his successor-in-interest shall subsist in the land or a portion thereof which were diluviated prior to the substitution of section 86 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950, by the State Acquisition and Tenancy (Amendment) Act (Act XV of 1994) if the land re-appear in situ within thirty years of their loss, which came into effect on 13th July, 1994, or in the alternative, whether the right, title and interest of the tenant or his successor-in-interest shall extinguish in the said land in the process of loss by diluvion prior to the date of commencement of the substituted provisions of section 86 of the Act, 1950 but the said land re-appear in situ within thirty years from 13th July, 1994.
(2.) Short facts which are relevant for the disposal of this point are as under:
(3.) The respondent sought judicial review of the said memorandum. The High Court Division held that the impugned order in respect of land which re-appeared (alluviated) prior to 13th July 1994 will vest in the Government and that the Act XV of 1994 was not applicable to such land ..... the impugned order Annexure D to that extent and gave a direction that all lands diluviated prior to 13th July, 1994, will vest in the Governments and that the Act XV of 1994 was not applicable to such lands in diluvion to be illegal and without lawful authority. However, in the operating part of the judgment the High Court Division declared that the order directing to treat all lands diluviated prior to 13th July, 1994 to have vested in the Government. It appears to us that the High Court Division has made inconsistent observations and directions which require to be clarified for the interest of the riparian cultivators. The question involves is one of interpretations of section 86 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 (the Act of 1950).