Judgment B. P. Jha, B. S. Sinha, JJ. 1. In an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing. annexures 2 and 4. Annexure 2 is an enquiry report submitted by the Land Reforms Deputy collector under section 11 of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 (Bihar Act 22 of 1954) hereinafter referred to as "bhoodan Yagna Act". Annexura 4 is the order of the commissioner of Bhagalpur Division. 2. The lands in question are plot nos.715, 716, 717, 726, 405, 697 and 718 measuring 6.44 acres in Mouza Chopkiyari in the district of Santhal parganas. It is also clear from the report of the Karamchari in Case no.528 of 1957 that the aforesaid lands were donated to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee by recorded tenants namely, Suraj Kole and Lakshman Kole. There was an enquiry by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. The land Reforms Deputy Collector after holding enquiry confirmed the aforesaid donation under section 11 of the act. The effect of the order passed under section 11 of the Bhoodan Yagna act was that the aforesaid lands vested in the Bhoodan Yagna Committee under section 13. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal under section 17 of the bhoodan Yagna Act. Hence, the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy collector became final so far as the donation is concerned. Sec.23 of the bhoodan Yagna Act provides that : "the provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force". It is for this reason that we hold that the provisisons of the Bhoodan Yagna Act shall prevail upon the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act 1949. Hence, we are unable to interfere with the impugned orders as contained in annexures 2 and 4. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in possession of the plots in question as these lands were abandaned by the recorded raiyat. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of the contention in any of the courts. The petitioner has not filed any document to suggest that he was recorded as raiyat in respect of these lands. Hence, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of the contention in any of the courts. The petitioner has not filed any document to suggest that he was recorded as raiyat in respect of these lands. Hence, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal before Deputy Commissioner after 14 years under section 17 of the Bhoodan Yagna Act in our opinion it is not an appeal under section 17 of the Bhoodau Yagna Act as the appeal was not filed within 60 days from the date of the impugned order passed under section 11. The appellate authority rejected the appeal as it was filed after 14 years of the passing of the impugned order. In Revision the Commissioner upheld the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. In these circumstances we are unable to interfere with the orders contained in annexures 2 and 4. 5. In the result the application is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs. Application dismissed.