This second appeal is by the defendants. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit praying for a decree for declaration of the suit land measuring more or less 3 Bighas on contiguous north of Dag No. 56 of 2nd R.S. Patta No. 15, Mouja Rukni part-I. Ph. David sonabad as accretions to their periodic patta land and as such part and parcel of their land and also for a declaration of their title as periodic settlement holder over the suit land. Plaintiffs have also prayed for confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of khas possession and further for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the suit land and interfering with their possession. The suit was contested by the defendants. The State of Assam was also made a party and a written statement has been filed. 3. The basis on which the plaintiffs have claimed the suit land is stated in para-1 of the plaint which runs as follows : "That the plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of land of Dag No. 56 of 2nd R.S. Patta No. 15 of Mouja Rukni Part-I, Pa. Davidsonabad, District Cachar. The river Rukni was originally flowing north of this dag land and it gradually and imperceptivity receded towards further north and the lands described in the Schedule below have gradually and imperceptivity accreted to the aforesaid periodic dag lands by the recess of the river Rukni and the lands described in the Schedule below arc to be considered as part and parcel of the aforesaid dag lands." 4. The defendants have denied that the suit land accreted to the dag of the plaintiffs viz.. Dag No. 56. According to the defendants accretion of the said land took place to Dag No. 59 which was Government khas land. According to the defendants they got annual patta in respect of the land covered by Annual Patta No. 42, Dag Nos. 190, 195/600, and 195 in Nagadivgram Mouja, Paragana Banraj and on 23. 4. 71 it was converted to 2ndR.S. Periodic Patta No. 169 Dag Nos. remaining same. There is no dispute that river Rukni is flowing by the side of Dag Nos. 56 & 59 and on the northern side of the river the land, in respect of which defendants got the settlement, is situated and on the southern side Dag No. 56, belonging to the plaintiffs, is situated. 5. remaining same. There is no dispute that river Rukni is flowing by the side of Dag Nos. 56 & 59 and on the northern side of the river the land, in respect of which defendants got the settlement, is situated and on the southern side Dag No. 56, belonging to the plaintiffs, is situated. 5. The learned trial Court framed as many as seven issues and the relevant issues for the present purpose are Issues Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Both the learned Courts below decreed the suit. 6. Clause (b) (6) with explanation of section 3 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation runs as follows ; "(b) "estate" includes- (6) any land being the exclusive property of the Govern­ment of which the State Government has directed the separate entry in the registers of revenue paying and revenue-free estates mentioned in Chapter IV; Explanation : Any land gained by alluvion or by dereliction of a river to any estate as here defined, which under the laws in force is considered an increment to the tenure to which the land has accreted, shall be deemed to be part of that estate;" Clause (c) of section 34 of the said Regulation is quoted below : "When a settlement has been accepted, the revenue fixed thereby and no more shall be payable from such date and for such term, as the State Government may fix in this behalf : Provided that- (a) The revenue shall be liable to revision according to the law for the time being in force; (b) a settlement shall not be final as against the Government until it has been sanctioned by the State Government; (c) in the case of gain by alluvion, or by dereliction of a river, or loss by deluvion, during the currency of the settlement, increment shall be assessed and reductions granted by the Deputy Commissioner according to such limitations as to the extent of gain or loss and such other conditions as may be prescribed;" 7. I may also state here that Rule 17 A of the Settlement Rules framed under the said Regulation empowers the Deputy Commissioner to reduce or increase the revenue in case of gain by alluvion or by dereliction of a river or loss by diluvion. 8. I have heard Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the appellant,. Mr. Acharyya for the respondent and Mr. Mazamdar for the State. 9. 8. I have heard Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the appellant,. Mr. Acharyya for the respondent and Mr. Mazamdar for the State. 9. Regarding doctrine of accretion vis a-vis section 3 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, quoted above Mr. Sahewalla has drawn my attention to a recent decision of this Court in Bihari Das @ Biharilal Das & others vs. Samsuddin & Ors, 1989 (2), Gauhati Law Journal 41. 10. On this subject there is no law in this State. Relying on the decisions of the Privy Council in Secretary of State vs. Foucar & Company Limited, AIR 1934 PC 17, it was held that in absence of statutory law on the subject principle underlying the law of England is relevant for consideration for this purpose. It was further held that "Alluvion is the land gained from the sea or a river by washing up of sand and soil so as to form 'terra firma'(firm earth). If the process is gradual and imperceptible the accretion belongs to the owner of the pre-existing lands (riparian owner); if the process is sudden and perceptible, the accretion belongs to the Crown." The above is the principle of law in England and accepted by our Courts. It was also held relying' on the provisions of section 34 (cj of the Assam Lind and Revenue Regulation that such incre­ments of land shall be assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, to such limitations as to the extent of gain and such other conditions as may be prescribed and that proviso (c) of section 34 also indicates that, even if a right to the land gained by alluvion, or by dereliction of a river is recognised under the law in force, the right may not necessarily extend to the entire land accreted, i.e. right m \y be limited to a restricted area only. 11. Situated thus, I am of the opinion that any land gained by alluvion or by dereliction of a river to any estate shall be considered as an increment to the tenure to which land is accreted. But the process of accretion must be gradual and imperceptible so as to enable the owner of the pre-existing land (riparian owner) to claim that the land as an increment to his estate. If the process is sudden and perceptible the accretion belongs to the Government. But the process of accretion must be gradual and imperceptible so as to enable the owner of the pre-existing land (riparian owner) to claim that the land as an increment to his estate. If the process is sudden and perceptible the accretion belongs to the Government. This principle of English law is being followed in our country, even if there is no statutory law on the subject. Reading section 3 (c) with explanation and section 34 (c) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, I am further of the opinion that this has also been accepted in Assam by virtue of the above Regulation with the rider that Deputy Commissioner shall assess the land revenue according to such limitation and also the extent of gain and on such conditions as may be prescribed. Following the law laid down in Bihari Das (supra) I further hold that the riparian owner may not necessarily bi entitled to get his right over the entire land accreted and such right may be restricted as may be prescribed by rule by the Government. 12. Coming to the case in hail though there is no clear finding that the suit land claimed by the plaintiff was due to gradual and imperceptible accretion, the State Government in their written statement has not disputed the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land and in fact has admitted that the plaintiffs are in possession of the land. It has also been admitted that part of the land has already been settled to the plaintiffs. Therefore, decree of the learned Court below cannot be faulted. 13. According to Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the appellants, defendants are not claiming the suit land as they were settled with land covered by Periodic Patta viz. 2nd R.S. Periodic Patta No. 169 Dag Nos. 190, 195/600 and 195 in Mouja Nagadivgram. Accor­ding to defendants Dag No. 59 was Government khas land and the accretion of the land took place to the said dag. As the State Government in their written statement has not put up such a claim, the defendants plea is not tenable. 14. Mr. 2nd R.S. Periodic Patta No. 169 Dag Nos. 190, 195/600 and 195 in Mouja Nagadivgram. Accor­ding to defendants Dag No. 59 was Government khas land and the accretion of the land took place to the said dag. As the State Government in their written statement has not put up such a claim, the defendants plea is not tenable. 14. Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel has urged that on the strength of the present decree the plaintiffs may dispossess the defendants from the land which was duly settled with them and therefore, learned counsel wants a clear direction from this Court to safeguard the interest of the defendants. This apprehension of the defendants is also on the basis of the fact that in the Schedule to the land plaintiffs have claimed about 3 Bighas, but the Amin Commissioner found only about 1 Bigha and odd land during his survey. It has been explained before this Court by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that this reduction in area is due to the fact that a part or the Laid was already settled with the plaintiffs, as stated in the written statement of the State Government. 15. Be that as it may, I direct that on the strength of the present decree, the plaintiffs shall not disturb the possession of the defendants over the land which was allotted to them under the Patta and Dag Nos. stated above. Similarly, defendants shall also not disturb the possession of the land for which the present decree has been obtained. With the above direction and observation the appeal is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I leave the parties to bear their own costs.