Application:

Both Bestia and Cillia became independent states in 1960, the same year that their
common border was constructed. This boundary divides the two countries, which are now
known as the states of Bestia and Cillia. On the other hand, they are now unable to reach a
consensus over the boundary that divides their respective states. The river that makes up that
portion of the boundary splits the two territories in two at its midpoint, which serves as the
demarcation line between the two jurisdictions. The river has changed its course over the
course of the last century, and as a result, a section of it can now be found entering Cillia's
land at two miles.

The passage of the river into the regions of Cilia can be referred to as an accretion
since the formation of the river was accomplished through a process that was so slow and
gradual that it was. This is due to the procedure that created it in the first place. As the river
makes its way through its true advancement from moment to moment, it is impossible to
determine whether it has grown by an extra two miles into Cillia since the last time anyone
saw it. The expansion was not the result of some remarkable or artificial action; rather, it was
caused by the action of the river during the regular course of operations carried out by nature.
This growth was not the outcome of any action that was artificial or extraordinary. It is not
restricted to merely changes that were brought about by natural processes; rather, it is
relevant in circumstances in which changes were brought about by windswept sand. The
concept will be applicable to deposits that were caused by human action, except for deposits
that were purposely produced by the claimant or his agents.

Those deposits will not fall under the purview of the doctrine. Because of the way it
originated, which was one that was so slow and gradual, the expansion of the river into the
territories of Cilia can be referred to as an accretion. This was the case that was brought forth
by Clarke against Canada. The passage of the river into the regions of Cilia can be referred to
as an accretion since the formation of the river was accomplished through a process that was
so slow and gradual that it was. The "Doctrine of Accretion" is the name given to the process
in common law that describes situations in which a boundary between land and water
gradually shifts in such a way that the change is not easily discernible. The doctrine states, in
a general sense, that "gradual accretions of land from water belong to the owner of the land
gradually added to and, conversely, land encroached upon by water ceases to belong to the
former owner." This is because "gradual accretions of land from water belong to the owner of
the land gradually added to" (VGS). The elements are present in the case, and it is likely that
the judge will elaborate on the concept of accretion. The judge will likely explain that the
term "accretion" refers to the elevation of land adjacent to a river or on the sea that is brought
about by the accumulation of dirt, sand, or some other substance. In this case, the judge will
likely elaborate on the concept of "accretion." A growth of this nature needs to be restrained,
slow, and essentially undetectable in terms of the real effects it has. It was hypothesized that
the increase cannot be noticed in its actual progression from time to time and that it must be
due to the action of the water in its regular course of nature's process, rather than any unusual
or unnatural activity. This speculation was based on the observation that the increase cannot
be observed in its actual progression from time to time. This supposition was made since the
rise is unable to be observed in its actual progress from time to time. Regarding the inquiry
into whether the border line could be shifted to the advantage of Cillia. However, in Southern
Centre of Theosophy v. South Australia [1982] 2 WLR 544, the Privy Council emphasized
that because the Doctrine was based on principles of fairness, any exclusion of it in a
particular case must be plainly shown to be valid. Based on the Doctrine of Accretion is a
presumption that can be disproven. Therefore, the doctrine is still applicable even if the
original boundary can be determined by measurements or reference to natural objects that are
still reachable after the accretion or encroachment: The case was called Brighton & Hove
General Gas Co. v. Hove Bungalows Ltd. and it took place in 1924. Hove Bungalows Ltd.
was the defendant in the case.

As an illustration of this, in the case of Baxendale v. Instow Parish Council [1981J

2WLR 1055], it was ruled that the circumstances of the conveyance had refuted the
presumption that the Doctrine of Accretion applied. This was stated in the decision. There has
been no alteration to the boundary that separates Cilia and Bestia as a result of the application
of the rule of accretion to the river. It has been decided that the boundary line, which now
serves as a point in the middle of the two regions, will not be altered in any way. There is a
possibility that both states will reach a compromise about the new boundaries. However,
there was a stalemate between the states and the court regarding a solution to the problem and
the assignment of a commission to conduct a study and report opinion on the conflict
between Cilia and Bestia.
 The case of Southern Centre of Theosophy v. South Australia was heard in 1982 and
resulted in 2 WLR 544. In England and Wales, the doctrine of accretion is applied to land
owned by the Crown in the same manner that it is applied to land owned by private
individuals. Because of this, accretions of land will be transferred into private ownership
when the bed of tidal rivers is owned by the Crown while the shoreline is owned by private
individuals.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, given that the natural process of forming Cilia adhered to the principles
of the law of accretion. It is not feasible to tell that the river has extended its length by two
miles and is now located in Cillia as it flows through the valley. The natural process of
accretion was what gave rise to the region known as Cilia; humans had nothing to do with its
formation. As the river makes its way through its true advancement from moment to moment,
it is impossible to determine whether it has grown by an extra two miles into Cillia since the
last time anyone saw it. The expansion was not the result of some remarkable or contrived
action, but rather the natural progression of processes that are always taking place in the
natural world.