Section 8 Procedure for the acquisition of immovable property based on the case limitation proceedings and the report prepared by the Commission and the commission reduction and inequality report The effect of the claimant is based on the suit limitation proceedings. And a report was prepared by a retired Deputy Tehsildar. The Commission was appointed by the Assistant Commissioner (Grade I) and not the trial court onus to prove that the evidence of this report could be presented to the plaintiffs. The Appeal Court noted some of the contradictions and flaws in the Commission's report. What was the note. That the report was not signed by the presiding officer of the court / revenue officer. No notice was taken on the defendant by the Revenue Officer. That report was reported without notification and without hearing the defendant. That the plaintiff was not served by the Commission for the purpose of limitation proceedings. The defendant was verbally served, but his signature was not found by the present service officer. This report was accepted by the Revenue Officer approximately one year and five months after the controversial land demarcation application, and it took two years and nine months to complete the demarcation process as a whole. Includes report verification. The commission was not examined as a witness before the court, and no witness was presented to prove the commission's signature on the proceedings by it, the High Court said in its report by the appellate court. Did not mention the anomalies and flaws mentioned in the excerpt. The commission was not proven, therefore, in the claimant's favor
