PUBLIC LAW 103-365-OCT. 14, 1994 108 STAT. 3469 Public Law 103-365 103d Congress An Act To resolve the status of certain lands in Arizona that are subject to a claim Oct. 14, 1994 as a grant of public lands for railroad purposes, and for other purposes. [S. 1233] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, ^r^^^ r ^ Wilderness Land SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 'A^%fmt^^°^ This Act may be cited as the "Arizona Wilderness Land Title 16 USC 1132 Resolution Act of 1994". ^°^ SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. 16 USC 1132 (a) FINDINGS.— Congress finds that— (1) the Act entitled "An Act granting Lands to aid in the Construction of a Railroad and Telegraph Line from the States of Missoiui and Arkansas to the Pacific Coast", approved July 27, 1866 (14 Stat. 292), granted a right-of-way in Arizona to the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company, together with certain alternate sections of public lands on both sides of the right-of-way; (2) patents were not issued to some of the lands in the grant described in paragraph (1); (3) as successors in interest to the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company, the Santa Fe Pacific Railroad, and Perrin Properties, Inc., a Caliifomia corporation— (A) claim rights to approximately 14,632.72 acres of the lands described in paragraph (1); and (B) applied to the Secretary of the Interior for a patent to the lands; (4) the Secretary' of the Interior denied the application for the patent, which was filed in the name of the Santa
- .,.
Fe Railroad Company for the benefit of Perrin Properties, Inc., on the ground that the claim had been extinguished by failure to record the claim in accordance with the Act entitled "An Act to require the recordation of scrip, lieu selection, and similar rights", approved August 5, 1955 (69 Stat. 534; 43 U.S.C. 274 note) (commonly known as the "Recordation Act"); (5) on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company, et al. v. Secretary of the Interior, 830 F.2d 1168 ^J. (D.C. Cir. 1987), that such Act was not applicable and did not bar the issuance of a patent; (6) ultimate resolution of the question of the title to the 14,632.72 acres may require years of additional litigation;
�
