Phukan J. — The lands covered by old jote No. 105,37 & 38 of Mouja Uttar Ramchandraghat, at present Purba Ramchandraghat under Khowai Sub Division originally belong to Late Behari Lal Sarkar, father of the present petitioners. Some parts of the said jote land of the petitioners went under river-bed during the last settlement operation and in course of time the river changed its course and as a result there formed alluvial land which according to the petitioners vested to their original jote land. Accordingly, the present petitioners filed a petition before the learned Collector, West Tripura, at Agartala, under section 17 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, I960, for short, "TLR & LR Act''. The learned Collector after examining the revenue record, namely, khatian, map and also the enquiry report of the Revenue Inspector came to the definite finding that the petitioners acquired jote right in respect of newly formed alluvial land which is covered by the boundary of old jote land. The learned Collector also found from the enquiry that the present petitioners were in possession of the said alluvial land and accordingly the learned Collector declared that the present petitioners are the owners and possessors of the newly formed alluvial land under section 18 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960. The said order was passed on 8.6. 977 vide Annexure of the petition. Thereafter, on 19.12.1977 the present respondents preferred an appeal under section 93 of the TLR & LR Act, before the State Government which was disposed of by the Revenue Commissioner cum Secretary of the Government. By the impugned order dated 8/14.12. 1978 the learned appellate authority after making spot inspection & also hearing the parties set aside the order of the learned Collector. 3. We quote below section 17 and sub-section (2) of section 18 of the TLR & LR Act: "17. All alluvial lands, newly formed as lands or abandoned beds shall vest in the State Government free from all encum­brances subject to the provisions of sub-section(2) of section 18: and in allotting such land the State Government may give preference to the persons affected by diluvion. 18. All alluvial lands, newly formed as lands or abandoned beds shall vest in the State Government free from all encum­brances subject to the provisions of sub-section(2) of section 18: and in allotting such land the State Government may give preference to the persons affected by diluvion. 18. (2) The holder shall, on re-appearance of the land lost by diluvion, at any time within a period of t twelve years from the date of such diluvion have the right to possession thereof subject to liability to pay such revenue to be assessed under section 38 and to other privileges, conditions and restrictions as were applicable to the holding prior to diluvion of the land provided, he applies for such right to the competent authority within, one year of the re-appearance of the land lost by diluvion." 4. We need not examine in detail the principle of alluvial and diluvion of land in view of specific provisions made by the legislator in the above sections 17 and 18 (2). Section 17 of the Act applies to newly formed alluvial lands and abandoned river-beds and according to the said sections such lands shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances but subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 18. As the lands vest with the State Government, it can allot the land to any person and in doing so may give preference to a person affected by diluvion. On the other hand, sub section (2) of section 18 is a protection given to the holder of the land lost by diluvion. It provides that on re-appearance of the land lost by diluvion, within a period of 12 years, the holder of the land shall have a right to possess subject to payment of land revenue and other conditions and restrictions as applicable to the holing prior to diluvion of the land. But for getting the benefit of sub-section (2) of section 18, the holder shall have to apply to the competent authority. 5. Coming to the case in hand, we find from the appeal petition, (Annexure-3) filed by the respondents before the appellate authority, that it is an admitted position that the alluvial lands are in possession of the present petitioners. But for getting the benefit of sub-section (2) of section 18, the holder shall have to apply to the competent authority. 5. Coming to the case in hand, we find from the appeal petition, (Annexure-3) filed by the respondents before the appellate authority, that it is an admitted position that the alluvial lands are in possession of the present petitioners. The learned Collector, West Tripura at Agartala in his order dated 8.6.1977 vide Annexure 1 examined the khatian, map and report of the Revenue Inspector and came to the definite finding that the newly formed alluvial lands are covered by the boundary pf old jote Nos. 105,37 & 38. There is no dispute that the present petitioners are the owner of the lands covered by the above old jote Nos. In view of the above factual position, there can be no doubt that the petitioners are entitled to get benefit under sub-section(2) of section 18 of the TLR & LR Act over the newly formed alluvial land. Even assuming that the alluvial lands were a newly formed-, the authority has power to allot alluvial lands to the petitioners as there is no dispute that their lands were affected by diluvion. We are, therefore, do not find any fault in the order dated 8.6.1977 passed by the learned Collector. 6. We have perused the order of the appellate authority and . we find that the appellate authority did not take into consideration the factual position as disclosed in the orders of the learned Collector. The appellate authority took note of the contention raised before tile learned Collector on behalf of the present petitioners that when the course of the river was changed the 'newly thrown up lands' vest in the original jotdars. However, the appellate authority observed as held as follows : "This plea though accepted by the Collector is apparently wrong." The appellate authority has not given any reason as to why the above plea was wrong. That apart, the appellate authority took into consideration the provisions of the Bengal Regulation of 1825 but did not considered at all the provisions of sections 17 & 18(2) of the TLR&LR Act, which is the relevant law applicable to the case in hand. That apart, the appellate authority took into consideration the provisions of the Bengal Regulation of 1825 but did not considered at all the provisions of sections 17 & 18(2) of the TLR&LR Act, which is the relevant law applicable to the case in hand. We are conscious of the fact that writ Court can not sit in appeal over the judgment of the appellate authority, but from the above Discussion it is absolutely clear that the appellate authority did not consider at all the relevant law, the evidence on record and also did not give reasons for rejecting the findings of the learned Collector. We are therefore, of the opinion, that the appellate order cannot stand and is liable to be set aside which we hereby do. 7. Mr. 'Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation. We need riot enter into this aspect of the matter as on merit the present petition is liable to be allowed. 8. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents ha& urged that in view of the order passed by the learned Collector in favour of the present petitioners, they are now trying to take possession of the entire alluvial lands and in the process trying to dispossess other persons who have acquired right over some portions of the alluvial lands. In our opinion, the apprehension of Mr. Dutta has no justification, inasmuch as the learned Collector has clearly stated in his order that the petitioners would be entitled to the lands covered by the boundary of the old jote land Nos. 105, 37 and 38. 9. From what has been stated above, we allow the present petition and set aside the impugned order of the learned appellate authority dated 8/14.12.1978, vide Annexure-5 to the petition. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.