Order.- The State of Madras, represented by the Assistant Secretary, Board of Revenue, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari, quashing the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Ramanathapuram, at Madurai in R.A. No. 484 of 1960. The facts leading up to the writ petition are briefly the following. We are concerned in this case with an extent of 29.30 acres on the bank of the river Vaigai, situated in the village limits of Pappankulam, in Sivaganga taluk of the Ramanathapuram district. This land is comprised in item No. 21, among a larger number of items, which came up for consideration before the Estates Abolition Tribunal. Pappankulam village was taken over by the Government with effect from 7th September, 1949 after notifying it as an undertenure estate under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948). The first respondent in this writ petition, who was the prior landholder of the village, applied for patta under section 12(b)(ii) of the aforesaid Act for several lands, including item No. 21, 58.84 acres now in dispute. The Assistant Settlement Officer, by order passed on 15th June, 1956, granted him patta for all the items except item No. 21. The first respondent appealed to the Estates Abolition Tribunal. The Estates Abolition Tribunal set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, and remand d the case to him for fresh disposal, after taking into account the additional documents filed at the stage of appeal. Before the Estates Abolition Tribunal, the petitioner, Government of Madras, had claimed that part of item No. 21-29.30 acres, was river poramboke, vesting in the Government. This question was also remanded by the Tribunal for consideration by the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer. A Writ Petition No. 1 of 1957 filed immediately by the first respondent against the order of remand was dismissed by this Court on 12 th August, 1959. The Additional Assistant Settlement Officer then went into the dispute. There was also before him a claim by some of the ryots of the village who claimed interest in item No. 21 adverse to the landholder. The Additional Assistant Settlement Officer then went into the dispute. There was also before him a claim by some of the ryots of the village who claimed interest in item No. 21 adverse to the landholder. The Additional Assistant Settlement Officer upheld the claim of the Government that 29.30 acres was river-bed poramboke, and in respect of the balance in item No. 21, in extent 29.24 acres, he granted a joint patta to the Zamindar as well as some of the ryots. The landholder appealed to the Estates Abolition Tribunal. On 17th July, 1961 the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the landholder and held that the ryots had no interest in item No. 21. The Tribunal also disallowed the claim of the Government for treating 29.30 acres as river poramboke. The result was that the first respondent, landholder, got patta by this order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal for the whole extent of item No. 21-58.54 acres. Aggrieved with this order, the ryots filed a prior writ petition, in Vellaiswami Servai and others v. Ramasami Chettiar and others1, in this Court, impleading as one of the respondents the State of Madras. It is now represented by the Government Pleader that the State of Madras did not file any writ petition against the order, which the Estates Abolition Tribunal had passed adverse to the Government, in regard to the land claim’ d as river poramboke, because the Government believed that the ryots would support the claim of the Government, in the writ petition before the High Court. When the above writ petition came up for hearing before Veeraswami, J., the Counsel for the ryots gave up the plea of 29.30 acres being river poramboke and pressed only their claim for joint patta. Veeraswami, J., disposed of the petition on 25th July, 1962, but he observed that the Government could file a fresh writ petition, if so advised, for any relief they desired to obtain in respect of the river poramboke area. Accordingly the present writ petition was filed on 20th November, 1962 against the decision of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, holding that 29.30 acres is not river poramboke and for which the landholder could obtain patta under the Estates Abolition Act. Accordingly the present writ petition was filed on 20th November, 1962 against the decision of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, holding that 29.30 acres is not river poramboke and for which the landholder could obtain patta under the Estates Abolition Act. The Estates Abolition Tribunal has given a clear finding that it was common ground that the land in dispute was known as Athupadugai punjai and was so described in the village records. In the survey, which was undertaken after the village was taken over by the Government, the land was surveyed and its extent was found to be 58-54 acres. Its original paimash number was 328. At the re-survey it became split up into three survey numbers-124-13.14 acres; 125-21.10 acres; 126-24.30 acres. The levels were taken by the Assistant Engineer of the P.W.D. and it was found from the sketch prepared by him that 9.06 acres in Survey No. 124, 4.04 acres in Survey No. 125, and 16.20 acres in Survey No. 126 totalling 29.30 acres, were liable to submersion by the Vaigai river at the time of floods and consequently, on these data, the Government put forward their case that the aforesaid 29.30 acres was encroachment on the river-bed, and that no patta could be granted for any portion of the river-bed, which is liable to submersion. The Government also relied upon another circumstance, namely, that originally this land, Athupadugai punjai, had only 17.11 acres as per the patta, Exhibits C-1 and C-2 granted by the landholder in 1908 and 1909, where the extent noted was 309/16 kurukkams corresponding to 17-11 acres. A much larger extent has been reduced to the possession of the ryots in this paimash number, and the extent came to 95 kurukkams, and thereafter they had dealt with this larger area in documents like othi deeds and so on from 1917 onwards, which were marked as Exhibits A-2 to A-5. Even in Exhibit A-2, the earliest of these documents, othi deed dated 9th December, 1917, the extent of 30(13/16)kurukkams was described as implying that some time prior to 1917 the measurement of the land was found to be less but later on and before 1917, a larger area was found in the occupation of the ryots, on a fresh measurement. Even in Exhibit A-2, the earliest of these documents, othi deed dated 9th December, 1917, the extent of 30(13/16)kurukkams was described as implying that some time prior to 1917 the measurement of the land was found to be less but later on and before 1917, a larger area was found in the occupation of the ryots, on a fresh measurement. The ryots claimed that these additional areas were due to gradual accretion by alluvion from the river and they could not be construed as encroachments by the ryots on the riverbed proper. On the other hand, the Government relied upon these data to show that the ryots had encroached on the river-bed proper and what the measurement of the Assistant Engineer disclosed would be the area so encroached falling within the area of submersion at the time of floods. The Government also urged that riverbed lands cannot be converted into ryoti or pannai without an order under section 20-A of the Estates Land Act. The Estates Abolition Tribunal, differing from the view of the Assistant Settlement Officer, held that mere submersion at the time of floods, which in the case of Vaigai river, which is not a navigable or tidal river, occurs only for a few days in the year, would not enable the land to be treated as river-bed land, or river proper. Such submersion at the time of occasional floods in the year would be consistent with the land remaining as Athupadugai, as the term is understood in this part of the country. In regard to lands falling within the category of Athupadugai, the ryots or landholder, as the case may be, can establish a title to ownership as well as possession and such lands need not necessarily be construed as river poramboke needed for a common or communal purpose. I am of the opinion that the view of the Tribunal is correct in the circumstances of the case, and cannot be interfered with in writ proceedings. Normally, under the law relating to the ownership of the bed of rivers, the adjacent riparian owners are entitled to the bed of the river up to the middle line of the river-bed corresponding to each bank. No claim was put forward by the Government to the Vaigai riverbed lying within Pappankulam village limits as poramboke, before the notified date. Normally, under the law relating to the ownership of the bed of rivers, the adjacent riparian owners are entitled to the bed of the river up to the middle line of the river-bed corresponding to each bank. No claim was put forward by the Government to the Vaigai riverbed lying within Pappankulam village limits as poramboke, before the notified date. After the passing of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, the claim of the Government to the river-bed, was made on the basis,that it was land vesting in the Government under section 3(6) of the Act, which vests in the Government as from the notified date the entire estate including all communal lands and porambokes, rivers and streams. The question therefore is what is the meaning to be given to the word ‘river ‘for the purpose of such vesting, and whether the word would include also land which is Athupadugai. The term ‘Athupadugai ‘has been interpreted in several judicial decisions of this Court. In Secretary of State v. Raghunatha Thathackariar1, it was laid down that ‘Padugai land’ in the Trichinopoly and Tanjore taluks means land on the lower level bank breadth of the river between the edge of the sandy stream bed and the high flood-level bank. It is known as Padugai poramboke, padugai waste, padugai punja, padugai garden or merely padugai, while the sandy river-bed is known as ‘Neerodi’. Later on, they observe: “We have no hesitation in finding that the limits of the Cauvery river-bed poramboke are the limits of the sandy neerodi, or river-bed, and that the padugai raising up from the river-bed and up to the flood bank is not part of the river-bed.” In a later decision of this Court reported in Sivagurunathaswami Devasthanam v. Rathna2, Ramachandra Iyer, J., (as he then was) observed that, even though paduga land may not be part of the river-bed, it may be part of the river bank, in which case also, as in the case of river-bed lands, it would not come within the definition of ryoti land. The learned Judge also observed that such lands are formed usually by the gradual deposit of the alluvium and get hardened by being exposed to the sun and are really accretions to the bund. The Tamil Lexicon describes ‘Padugai ‘as land on the banks of a river fit for cultivation; . The learned Judge also observed that such lands are formed usually by the gradual deposit of the alluvium and get hardened by being exposed to the sun and are really accretions to the bund. The Tamil Lexicon describes ‘Padugai ‘as land on the banks of a river fit for cultivation; . In the Law Lexicon of P. Ramanatha Iyer, the view laid down in Secretary of State v. Raghunatha Thathachariar1is adopted for explaining the term. The meaning of the term, as clearly defined in the above manner, shows that Padugai is to be distinguished from the river-bed proper or the neerodi, and that not uncommonly such padugai lands are brought under cultivation and enjoyment. Where the issue is raised between the landholder and the ryot, there is no presumption that Athupadugai lands should be deemed to be ryoti lands as laid down in the decision of this Court in Sivagurunathaswami Devasthanam v. Rathna2. In the present case, the issue is r aised between the landholder on the one hand who claims it as his private land and the Government on the other, who assert that it is poramboke vesting in the Government under section 3 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act. When the Government is setting up a claim that it is river poramboke, which has vested in it under the provisions of section 3, the Government must clearly adduce evidence to show the basis on which the claim is based. The evidence of the Assistant Engineer in this case shows that the land is not included in the sandy bed of the river Vaigai. His evidence is that the river proper has been surveyed as Survey No. 323 whose extent is 48.50 acres, but in the case of Survey Nos. 124, 125 and 126, in which the disputed item is situated the soil is well settled and there are Kodukappuli trees. The Assistant Engineer fixed certain levels to mark the ordinary flood level of the Vaigai river, and then calculated the extents of submersion in the aforesaid three survey numbers, then form the land now in dispute. The Assistant Engineer added that after the construction of the Vaigai dam, even ordinary floods are not likely to occur. He also observed that the ordinary flood level conditions were not likely to obtain every year. The Assistant Engineer added that after the construction of the Vaigai dam, even ordinary floods are not likely to occur. He also observed that the ordinary flood level conditions were not likely to obtain every year. His evidence as to the appearance of the land, namely, that the soil is well settled, and its likely submersion only at the time of the ordinary floods shows that these are really cases of lands which are liable to submersion only at the time of floods, but not when the river is maintaining a normal flow. What is equally important is the description of the land as Athupadugai, a description which it has. retained for a long number of years-and also the appearance of the soil in a well-settled condition. The fact of its having been subject to alienations and other transactions with parties for many years from 1917 onwards, is also relevant. These are the data on which, besides the interpretation of the term Padugai in the decisions.above mentioned, the Tribunal relied for its view, that the Government was not able to substantiate their claim to this portion of the land as river poramboke by virtue of section 3 of the Estates Abolition Act. The onus is on the Government to show where the limits of the river proper end, and where begin the limits of the Padugai land or land submersible at the time of floods, and which can be the subject-matter of a title acquired by adjacent riparian owners by reason of its formation through a process of alluvion of the river. On this crucial point, except the opinion of the Assistant Engineer, about, the liability of the land to submersion at the time of floods, there are no other satisfactory data to support the claim of the Government for treating the land as poramboke. I am, therefore, of the opinion that no interference is called for with the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. V.S. ----- Petition dismissed.