What's the case of a Gazlan who steals a house and can merely pay for it where Ein Karak Nigzeles is resolved and noting Takanas Marish is only mi'D'Rabanan?
The other mefarshim argue with Rashi in Sukkah who describes a stolen sukkah as forcing someone out of their house.
Daniel Gray, Canada
I'm not sure I properly understand your question; the instance of the Gazlan forcing the owner of the Succah out of the Succah is brought in the Gemora Succah 31A, and I am not sure which machlokes Rashi and other Rishonim you meant.
Nonetheless, your question is intriguing and the Chazon Yechezkeil, Soitah, 7:10 deals with this topic.
First, there are opinions that Yi'ush is Koneh stolen real estate (Shulchan Aruch 371 and the Shach there note b). So according to that there is no question why we need the Mi'ut. Rav Abramsky cites an apparent contradiction in the Rambam who actually Poskins that "Karka Einah Nigzeles" and nonetheless brings this Din (Hilchos Melachim U'Milchamoseihem 7:5). He brings two possible answers:
1) The Rambam in Hilchos Kil'ayim states the one who steals Karka and and holds it to the point that the connection of the original owner is forgotten, and then sows Kil'ayim, it becomes Assur as though it is his. So indeed we see that even according to the opinion that "Karka Einah Nigzeles" it is possible in extreme circumstances for the Karka to change ownership.
2) If the house was built on the Karka of the Gazlan, who then proceeded to steal the house from the Nigzal, in this ccase there is no problem of "Karka Einah Nigzeles" and the Gezeila would effectively put the house in the possession of the Gazlan and therefore we need a Mi'ut to say that he does not return from the front in order to dedicate this house.
I hope that answers your question. If not, please send a clarification.
Shimon Brodie