D.A.R.Dis.No.2701/65 dt: 6-8-56, subsequent resumption of assigned land as per R.Dis.1316/88, dt:22-3-89 and further assignment in D.A.R.Dis.171/88, dt: 24-4-89. So it is established beyond doubt that their lands vested with government from 1932 onwards, and document subsequent to the date of relinquishment would be of some helpful to the appellants, where as the documents filed related to settlement patta for the fasli 1334, sale deed of 1927 which are prior to 1932. Regarding the further argument that the lands were in the possession of the appellants, by filing the cist receipt for the years 1971, 1976, 1979, 1981, 1999, 1992 and 1993 for Kulam No.6 also goes to show that the appellant paid cist to the lands included in Kulam No.6. As seen from the 10-1 extract for Kulam No.6 the disputed lands do not find place in the said Kulam No.6. As seen from the 10-1 extract for Kulam No.6 the disputed lands do not find place in the said Kulam from Fasli 1372 (as per present 10(1)). So the payment of land revenue for the disputed lands by the appellants is not acceptable. Added to this the appellants have not filed Adangal extracts to show their possession while the respondents possession is supported by the adangal extracts and cist receipts. So it is a well established lands even prior to the assignments made in favour of the respondents. Even assuming for a moment that the lands were patta lands upto 1927 whose possession was lost subsequently for a period of more than 60 years, the petitioners lost their claim permanently and the grounds of appeal are not acceptable.
