SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 4-9-1987 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 453/86 (Annexure-C) ; rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, in R. A. No. 18/85-86 dated 8-7-1986. The Special Deputy commissioner in turn has affirmed the order dated 30th April 1985 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya sub-Division, Mandya, in No LND. CR. 152/84-85. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner of land hearings No. 205/2 of Nagarakete village ; respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the owners of lands bearing S. No. 204/1, 204/2, 204/3 and 205/1 of Nsgar- kere village, Macidur Taluk These lands are situated on the eastern bank of Shimsha river; in other words the western boundary of these lands abuts the eastern bank of Shimsha river. The petitioner, according to the case of respondents 4 to 7, has encroached upon about 36 guntas of land forming part of Shimsha river bank, thus encroached the portion marked as ABCDEFGHIJ in the sketch prepared by the Surveyor under the direction of the assistant Commissioner on 26-7-1984. Ten guntas out of this portion abuts the land bearing S No 205/2 of which the petitioner is the owner and the remaining portion abuts the lands bearing S No. 205/1 and 204/1 to 204/3 which are in the possession of respondents Nos 4 to 7. The petitioner made an application for grant of the entire extent of 36 guntas of land to him on the ground that he has been in unauthorised occupation of the same. ( 3 ) THE Assistant Commissioner on conducting spot inspection in the presence of the parties and after hearing them, by the order dated 30th April 1985, rejected the application holding that the land in question cannot at all be considered to be alluvial land and if it is granted to the petitioner, it will cause damage to the adjoining land owners and further the public Works Department has not agreed for granting this land. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid order Annexure-A, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Special Deputy commissioner, Mandya, in R A. 18/85-86 who by the order dated 8th July 1986 concurred with the finding recorded by the Assistant Commissioner and also further held that the land cannot at all be granted to the petitioner and it is not an alluvial land. Accordingly, he rejected the appeal. The petitioner went up in further appeal to the Karnataka Appellate tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 453/ 1986 (L. R. ). The Tribunal by the order dt. 4th September 1987 rejected the appeal and held thus :"16. The Assistant Commissioner has passed his orders in Case No. LND. CR. 152/84-85 after giving opportunities to the parties and recording their statements as seen from the orders of the Asst. Commissioner which is at page 43 of the Assistant Commissioner's file. In para 2 he has stated that the appellant Sri Vishakantegowda, the encroacher of this land has given his statement on 13th November 1984 before the Assistant Commissioner. It is also seen from the records that notes of the spot inspection by the Assistant commissioner has been sent to the parties including the appellant. In the spot inspection report of the Assistant commissioner which is at page 33 of the Assistant Commissioner's file, it is mentioned that at the time of spot inspection the appellant Sri Vishakantegowda and the respondents were present. Therefore, there is no reason to hold that the appellant has not been given sufficient opportunity by the assistant Commissioner before passing the eviction order under Section 67 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 17. There is no material on record to come to the conclusion that the findings of the Special Deputy Commissioner given in his orders have to be reversed. In is not the case of the appellant that the Special Deputy Commissioner has not held proper enquiry. On the findings of the Special Deputy commissioner, we find that he has come to the conclusion after taking proper enquiry and after making spot inspection and there is no ground to interfere with the same. The contention of the appellant that it is an alluvial land is not substantiated and therefore, his request based on his contention that it is an alluvial land and should be granted to him does not hold any water. The contention of the appellant that it is an alluvial land is not substantiated and therefore, his request based on his contention that it is an alluvial land and should be granted to him does not hold any water. Though he is in unauthorised occupation of the land in question is not disputed, that itself will not confer any right on him for granting this land as it is held to be not an alluvial land and also as he is not only adjacent holder of the land adjoining this 36 guntas of river bed, therefore, we do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that as it is an alluvial land he is entitled for this grant of land since he is in possession and cultivating the land. We find that the learned special Deputy Commissioner has gone into the whole question in detail and has given justified reasons for rejecting the appeal and we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to interfere with this order. " ( 5 ) SRI Mohandas N. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal and the other Authorities below are not right in holding that the land cannot at all be classified as alluvial land and as such it cannot at all be granted to the petitioner. The learned counsel places reliance on Section 81 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and submits that as the extent of land is less than an acre and as the land is alluvial, the petitioner is entitled to the use and occupation of the same and as such he cannot at all be dispossessed. On the contrary Learned counsel Sri kadidal Manjappa and Sri Udayashankar, learned Government Pleader submit that all the three authorities have concurrently held that the land is not alluvial, therefore, it does not fall under Section 81 of the Act, and they have also further held that if it is granted to the petitioner for agricultural operation it would affect the interest of respondents 4 to 7 who are owners of adjoining lands and would also affect the river bed; that the Public works Department has also opined that the land should not be granted for cultivation and that it should be allowed to remain as it is. The learned Government pleader has also made available the records of the case. ( 6 ) THE accuracy of the sketch prepared by the Surveyor on the direction of the Assistant Commissioner on 26-7-1984 is not in dispute. The findings recorded by the authorities below viewed in the light of undisputed sketch, it is not possible to hold that the land is alluvial. It forms part of the river bed. It is not formed either due to the overflow of the river or due to the change of the course of the river. It is not abutting the river bed whereas it is a river bed. Therefore, it cannot be held to be alluvial. "dictionary meaning of the word 'alluvial' is formation of a new land by water action. The land formed by imperceptible gradual deposit or addition of soil from a river or the sea to the land, the quantity of deposit or addition of soil at each moment of time cannot at all be perceived. Alluvion formed due to river flow can be divided into four distinct heads: (i) That which is imperceptibly added to land by a river; (ii) That which being detached from the land of one person by the open violence of a river, becomes united with the land of another; (iii) Island springing up in a river; and (iv) Bed abandoned by a river. The case on hand does not fall in any of the aforesaid categories. It is not the case of either of the parties that due to change of water course of the river, the land in question is formed. No such finding is recorded by the authorities below. The case on hand does not fall in any of the aforesaid categories. It is not the case of either of the parties that due to change of water course of the river, the land in question is formed. No such finding is recorded by the authorities below. According to the finding recorded and as revealed from the Inspection Notes, the land in question forms part of the river bed which is not abandoned. As long as it is the river bed which is not abandoned, it does not. fall under Section 81 of the Act. Section 81 of the Act reads thus: 81. Alluvial land and its liability to land revenue.-1) Notwithstanding any law, custom or usage to the contrary, all alluvial lands, newly cormed islands, abandoned river beds shall vest in the state Government but the holder or occupant of the bank or shore on which such alluvial land is formed, shall be entitled to the temporary use thereof, unless and until the area of the same exceeds one acre, in which case such land, island or riverbed shall be at the disposal of the Deputy Commissioner subject to the provisions of Section 92. 2) No land revenue shall be leviable in respect of any alluvial lands, newly formed islands or abandoned river beds during the period of temporary use under sub-section (1 ). "thus in order to attract Section 81 of the act, the land must be either alluvial or newly formed island or abandoned river bed. As already pointed out, the land in question does not fall in any of these categories. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to take the benefit of the provisions contained in Section 81 of the act. As far as Section 92 of the Act is concerned, it can only be invoked if the land is alluvial land. As it is already pointed out, the land in question is not alluvial land. Therefore, Section 92 of the Act is also not available to the petitioner. Thus it follows that the authorities below cannot be held to have committed an error in refusing to grant the land in question. As it is already pointed out, the land in question is not alluvial land. Therefore, Section 92 of the Act is also not available to the petitioner. Thus it follows that the authorities below cannot be held to have committed an error in refusing to grant the land in question. "it is also relevant to notice that the Assistant Commissioner and the special Deputy Commissioner both have recorded a finding that as the land in question forms part of the riverbed if it is allowed to be cultivated, it is likely to result in erosion of the soil and thereby causing damage to the riverbed which, in course of time, is likely to affect the owners of the lands adjoining to the riverbed. " ( 7 ) THERE is no valid reason pointed out to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the three authorities below. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the petition has to fail and the same is dismissed. ( 9 ) SRI Udayashankar, learned Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance in six weeks. Writ Petition Dismissed. --- *** --- .