R. C. MANKAD, S. H. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiffs are the owners of survey No. 395 situated on the northern bank of Narmada river in Broach District. It admeasures 93 acres and 17 gunthas. It is their case that on account of the slow and gradual shifting of the course of Narmada alluvial land was formed which admeasured 21 acres. They took its possession and began to cultivate it. The revenue authorities noticed that these 21 acres of land (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) was not alluvial land but was Bet Bhatha land and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to hold it. Therefore the Collector Broach issued on 11th May 1967 notice to the plaintiff for handing over its possession to the revenue authorities. The plaintiffs therefore filed the present suit for a declaration that they are the riparian owners of the suit land that they are entitled to take its possession and that the suit land cannot be dealt with except in accordance with secs. 63 and 64 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. They also pleaded that they are in lawful possession of the suit land and that the notice issued by the Collector is illegal. ( 2 ) IN defence the State denied that it was alluvial land but contended that it was Bet Bhatha land which was formed in 1961-62. The State also contended that the plaintiffs did not have any right to the suit land. ( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge held that the suit land was alluvial land and not Bet Bhatha land. In that view of the matter he further held that the plaintiff were entitled to it in terms of secs. 63 and 64 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. He therefore passed in favour of the plaintiffs decree as prayed for by them. ( 4 ) IT is that decree which is challenged by the State of Gujarat in this appeal. The only contention which Mr. K. M. Chhaya has raised on behalf of the State of Gujarat is whether the suit land is alluvial land or Bet Bhatha land. ( 4 ) IT is that decree which is challenged by the State of Gujarat in this appeal. The only contention which Mr. K. M. Chhaya has raised on behalf of the State of Gujarat is whether the suit land is alluvial land or Bet Bhatha land. In Secretary of State for India in Council v. Raja of Vizianagram and Another 49 Indian Appeals 67 the Privy Council has held that the recognition of title to alluvial accretion is largely governed by the fact that the accretion is due to the normal action of physical forces. It has been observed in that decision that under English rule all uvial accretion must be gradual slow and imperceptible. Illucidating this character of alluvial accretion the Privy Council has further held that slow and imperceptible are only the qualifications of the word gradual. ( 5 ) THE word gradual with its qualifications only defines a state relating to the conditions to which it is applied However the Privy Council has warned that the actual rate of progress necessary to satisfy the rule when used in connection with English rivers is not necessarily the same when it is applied to the rivers in India. ( 6 ) IN Aiyers Law Terms and Phrases 1973 Edition the connotation of the expression alluvion has been stated as an imperceptible addition when anything is so gradually and secretly added that we cannot perceive by our senses the quantity which at each moment of time is detached from the land of another person and added to others. In other words alluvion is an imperceptible increase. A land is said to be acquired by alluvion when it is acquired so gradually that one cannot say how much was added at a particular time. However if the accretion is sudden it is called dereliction. It is therefore clear that where there is gradual slow and imperceptible accretion of land it is alluvion or alluvial land. However if there is a sudden emergence of some land either on account of flood or on in count of river changing its course or on account of other natural or physical forces it is dereliction or Bet Bhatha land. ( 7 ) THE question relating to alluvial land has been dealt with by secs. However if there is a sudden emergence of some land either on account of flood or on in count of river changing its course or on account of other natural or physical forces it is dereliction or Bet Bhatha land. ( 7 ) THE question relating to alluvial land has been dealt with by secs. 63 and 64 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 Sec. 63 inter alia provides that when it appears to the Collector that any alluvial land which vests under any law for the time being in force in the State Government may with due regard to the interests of the public revenue be disposed of he shall offer the same to the occupant if any of the bank or shore on which such alluvial land has formed. In other words 60 63 gives to the neighbouring occupant or the occupant of the adjacent land the priority in the matter of purchasing it. Sec. 64 divides alluvial land into two parts and provides that when alluvial land forms on any bank or there the occupant if any of such bank on shore shall be entitled to the temporary use thereof unless or until the area of the same exceeds one acre. In other words if the alluvial land which is formed on any bank or shore is one acre or less the occupant of the adjacent land is entitled to its temporary use. It is clear from this provision that for such temporary use of such land no permission from the Government is necessary. The later part of sec. 64 provides for a situation where the alluvial land exceeds one acre. It lays down when it exceeds one acre it shall be at the disposal of the Collector subject to the provisions of sec. 43 In other words in a case where the alluvial land does not exceed one acre the occupant of the adjacent land is entitled to its temporary use. But when it exceeds one acre the occupant is not entitled to its temporary use but has only a preferential right to purchase it when the Collector decides to dispose it of. Secs. 63 and 64 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code therefore statutorily lay down the rights of the adjacent owners in case of alluvial land. But when it exceeds one acre the occupant is not entitled to its temporary use but has only a preferential right to purchase it when the Collector decides to dispose it of. Secs. 63 and 64 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code therefore statutorily lay down the rights of the adjacent owners in case of alluvial land. If we come to the conclusion that the suit land is the alluvial land certainly the plaintiffs would be entitled to a declaration of their rights under secs. 63 and 64 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and it would not be open to the Corrector to deal with or dispose of the suit land in any manner otherwise than in accordance with secs. 63 and 64 of the Bombay Land Revenue Cede. ( 8 ) NO provision has been pointed out to us which lays down how a Bet Bhatha land or dereliction is to be dealt with. In absence of any statutory provision dealing with such kinds of land it must vest in the State and it will be open to the State to dispose it of in such reasonable manner as it thinks fit. In other words the rights which the plaintiffs 4 in regard to alluvial land under secs. 63 and 64 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code will not be available 10 them if the land is found to be dereliction or Bet Bhatha land. They will have to stand in queue to purchase it. [the rest of the judgment is not material for the reports. ] .