JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—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: 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. 3. 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. 4. It is evident from a perusal of the judgments 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. 5. 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. 6. It is therefore evident that the petitioner had acquiesced to the appellate order. The other aggrieved parties including those who were claiming adverse possession as well as Ghuranna respondent No. 17, had filed revisions. The matter has now been remanded at their instance and therefore the petitioner claims that she should also be now heard in the appeal which had been filed by her. 7. The other aggrieved parties including those who were claiming adverse possession as well as Ghuranna respondent No. 17, had filed revisions. The matter has now been remanded at their instance and therefore the petitioner claims that she should also be now heard in the appeal which had been filed by her. 7. Learned counsel submits that it is a dispute of succession and therefore the petitioner cannot be ousted from the fray of parties for contesting the aforesaid litigation which involves succession to the holding of late Rahim. 8. To my mind, once the petitioner herself had acquiesced to the appellate order she cannot be permitted to raise this claim, inasmuch as, the appellate order in so far as the petitioner is concerned had become final. The revisions which have been allowed are in relation to the claim of others and not of the petitioner. In such a situation, the petitioner already having acquiesced to the said order, I see no reason to reopen the issues in relation to the claim of the petitioner as prayed for by Sri Deepak Kumar Srivastava. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the other parties to contest their respective claims. ——————