- (1.) HEARD Sri Deepak Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) SRI Deepak Kumar SRIvastava has produced a rough sketch of the pedigree of late Rahim which is reproduced hereunder: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... He submits that the lady who is now contesting the claim identifying herself to be Ghuranna is an impostor and that she is not entitled to claim any succession to the holding of late Rahim. It is undisputed and rather admitted at the bar that Rahim migrated to Pakistan immediately after partition where he died. He had two issues according to the petitioner, namely, one Navisher a son who is a Pakistani national and the other, Ghuranna who is the daughter of Rahim. Sri Srivastava further admits that the petitioner was born in Pakistan but she is now living after marriage in India therefore it is she who is entitled to succeed to the holding of Rahim and the respondent no. 17 is not her mother.
(3.) IT is evident from a perusal of the judgements which have been brought on record that Rahim is said to have been not available in India for the past 40 years and it is in this background that there were certain other parties who claimed adverse possession over the said land and have contested the matter. The respondent no. 17-Ghuranna according to the petitioner is not the daughter of Rahim and she has illegally claimed herself to be the heir of late Rahim and is contesting the matter on the basis of forged documents as an impostor. He therefore contends that the order passed by the authorities below adversely affects the petitioner and accordingly they deserve to be set aside. The Consolidation Officer had passed an order against the petitioner. Three appeals were filed. The petitioner had also filed an appeal which was dismissed. The petitioner did not prefer any revision against the said order.;