The Commissioner inter alia came to the finding that the appellant was in possession within a period of 12 years from the date of making the said application under Section 46 4 a and as such there was numberoccasion to remand the matter for decision by the Deputy Collector.
It appears that in companying to said finding about the possession of the appellant within 12 years from the date of making the application under Section 46 reliance was made to the entry in the Bhujarat Record of Rights of 1960 where the possession of the appellant was numbered.
The Commissioner also took into companysideration the fact that the opposite parties had produced rent receipts only from 1961 onwards.
The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court but such appeal was also dismissed.
But Additional Collector again passed an order of remand before the Deputy Commissioner.
Land Reforms but the matter was again dismissed by the said Deputy Commissioner by order dated 29th January.
By an order dated 8th October, 1986.
Such application was made on 12th January.
The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector and the case was remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner.
It was held in the said decision that forcible possession did number amount to transfer.
Such order of remand was challenged by the appellant in revision.
The application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Thereafter a special leave petition was filed before this Court out of which this appeal arises.
Against the said decision of the Commissioner in favour of the appellant, the opposite parties preferred a W.P. before the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court and by an order dated 23rd April.
Leave granted.
Land Reforms.
the Commissioner allowed the revision application.
The appellant again preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector land Reforms.
1976 before the Deputy Commissioner.
