NAFIDA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(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]...

(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.