The basic question which arose in this case is that according to the plaintiff the Barak River gradually receded towards the further South as a result of which there is accretion to the Dag of the plaintiff. But this land which was available by alluvion was settled to defendant No.2 by the State of Assam and hence the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right, title and khas possession. 2. A written statement was filed wherein the defence was taken that the suit land was not accretion of Dag No.62 but due to change of the course of river Barak, the land was contiguous to Dag No. 65 of Patta No. 21 belonging to the defendants. It is a part of an alluvion of river bed resulting from change of course of river. 3. The learned trial Court decreed the suit holding that it was a alluvion as contended. Earlier, there was a second appeal before this Court and this Court remanded the matter to the appellate Court to dispose of the same in accordance with law. The appellate Court after remand found as follows : “In the instant case what I find is that the entire course of river has changed within a short period of 6 to 7 years as per deposition of plaintiff and the defendants. The river was originally adjacent to the Dag No.62 of plaintiff but due to its change of course more than 10 big has of land accreted to the adjacent South of Dag No.62. This accretion cannot be considered as a gradual accretion but it is a sudden accretion due to abrupt change of course of river and the State Govt has rightly settled the land with the defendants. Mere fact of existence of the plaintiff's land under Dag No.62 cannot be in the instant circumstances a ground for claiming the vast plot of land which came out from the river bed due to sudden change of course of river. The materials in Ext 5 and 6 are enough to establish that the entire suit land is the result of sudden change of course of river and not the accretion to the plaintiffs land by gradual process.” 4. The word alluvion originally is a Latin term and it has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition as follows : “Alluvio Maris. Lat. The word alluvion originally is a Latin term and it has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition as follows : “Alluvio Maris. Lat. In the civil and old English law, the washing up of the sea; the soil thus formed; formation of soil or land from the sea; maritime increase. Hale, Anal, 8. “alluvio maris is an increase of the land adjoining by the projection of the sea, casting up and adding sand and slub to the adjoining land, whereby it is increased, and for the most part by insensible degree." Hale, de Jure Mar Pt 1,C6. Alluvion - That increase of the earth on a shore or bank of stream or the sea, by the force of the water, as by a current or by waves, which is so gradual that no one can judge how much is added at each moment of time. Inst 1.2, tl 20 Ang Water courses, 53; Jefferis vs. East Omaha Land Co. 134 US 178,10 Sup Ct 518 L Ed 872; Willett vs. Miller, 176 Okl 278,55 p 2d 90,92. 'Accretion' denotes the Act. However, the terms are frequently used symonymously. Ktz vs. Patterson, 135 Or 449,296 p 54, 55. Avulsion is sudden and perceptible St. Cair County vs. Lovingston, 23 Wall 46,23 L. Ed 59, See Accretion; Avulsion.” 5. This aspect of the matter also came up for consideration before this Court in (1989) 2 GLR 232 (Bihari Das @ Biharilal Das & others vs. Samsuddin & others) (1989 (2) GLJ 41) wherein a Single Judge of this Court pointed out that in order to be alluvion it must be caused gradually and imperceptibly, only then it will be accreted to the adjacent riparian owner as a matter of natural right but if the addition is caused suddenly, it will belong to the State otherwise it would contradict the terms 'gradual and imperceptibly'. On the basis of the finding of the learned appellant Court it is found that in fact it is not gradual and imperceptible but it was sudden change. 6. In that view of the matter, the land which was available belonged to the State and the State Govt made the settlement in favour of defendant No.2. That being the position, there is no merit in this second appeal and the same is dismissed. 7. 6. In that view of the matter, the land which was available belonged to the State and the State Govt made the settlement in favour of defendant No.2. That being the position, there is no merit in this second appeal and the same is dismissed. 7. Heard Sri AS Choudhury, learned Advocate for the appellant and Sri M. Singh, learned Advocate for the respondent No.2 and Sri HN Sarma, learned Govt Advocate for the State of Assam.