GIRDHARI LAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 18-2-2002 by which the learned Additional Commissioner has set aside the order passed by the trial Court dated 6-6-97 and 10-2-99 and remanded the case for fresh hearing.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revisionist on the point of admission. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the trial Court vide his order dated 6-6-97 has remanded the case on the basis of the compromise. The learned Additional Commissioner has wrongly set aside the order passed on 6-6-97 and remanded the case for fresh hearing.
(3.) AFTER perusal of the orders passed by the trial Court and Additional Commissioner it is clear that the case of the revisionist was that he has perfected his right on the basis of the adverse possession. No documentary proof has been filed on the disputed property. If there was any compromise this compromise was between the private parties. No compromise has been filed by the Gaon Sabha and State Government. Therefore, this suit cannot be decided only on the basis of the compromise because if there is no any documentary proof of possession parties may enter into compromise collusively to defraud the State Government. Therefore, learned Additional Commissioner has rightly remanded the case for re-trial.;