construction was being made over such land, it was objected by the respondent No.1. The counsel would submit that from the date of the purchase, from 24.04.2010, she was in possession of the land and after purchase made, the possession was held by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the land which is claimed by the respondent is bearing Kh. No. 11/34, therefore, necessarily it would be a different land then that of the petitioner and after the purchase made, the demarcation was also carried out in respect of the land Kh.No.11/31 by the petitioner which affirmed the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the land wherein construction is being made. He would further submit that though the dispute was with Smt. Asha Choubey but she was represented by her power of attorney and any statement made on behalf of the power of attorney would not be acceptable, consequently, it cannot be held on the basis of the evidence adduced by the respondent that she was in possession of the land. He therefore, submits that both the Courts below has not appreciated this fact and has come to a wrong finding of fact which necessarily required to be corrected by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that therefore, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the petition may be allowed.
