Respondents 3 to 8 in the writ petition have come up with this review petition. Parties are referred to in this order as they appear in the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioners, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

3. The matter arises under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 (the Rules). The facts relevant for the disposal of the Review Petition are the following: An item of property was obtained by the petitioner along with her parents, siblings and one of her sisters-in-law. Respondents 3 to 5 are the siblings of the petitioner and the sixth respondent is her sister-in-law who obtained the property along with her. The father of the petitioner died in the year 2003 and her mother died in the year 2011. After the death of the parents of the petitioner, she came to know that mutation of the property has been changed in the village records in favour of respondents 7 and 8 also who are the remaining sisters-in-law of the petitioner, on the basis of a joint Will alleged to have been executed by her parents. Ext.P5 is the copy of the Thandaper Account containing the entries in favour of respondents 7 and 8. According to the petitioner, her parents have not executed any Will and as such, their rights over the property devolved on her and her siblings on their death. The petitioner, therefore, instituted a suit for partition of her rights over the property and the same is pending. She also preferred representations before the Revenue officials to cancel the transfer of registry effected in favour of respondents 7 and 8. The writ petition was filed thereafter, alleging that the requests made by her before the Revenue officials are not being considered by them. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage itself directing the additional ninth respondent, who is the competent authority under the Rules to deal with appeals against transfer of registries, to treat Ext.P7 representation preferred by the petitioner before him for cancellation of the transfer of registry in favour of respondents 7 and 8 as an appeal under Rule 18 (i) of the Rules and dispose of the same with notice to all concerned. Respondents 3 to 8 are aggrieved by the said direction.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for respondents 3 to 8 contended that transfer of registry is only an arrangement for fiscal purpose and that the same does not affect the legal rights of the parties concerned over the property. It was also contended by the learned Senior Counsel that pattas are liable to be revised as and when the rights of parties are adjudicated by the Civil Courts. As such, according to the learned Senior Counsel, this Court ought not to have issued any direction in the writ petition, especially when it was disclosed in the writ petition that a suit is pending in relation to the property. It was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that in so far as the case of the petitioner in the instant case is that the Will relied on by respondents 7 and 8 is not a genuine one, the direction in the writ petition is virtually a direction to the Revenue officials to adjudicate upon the genuineness of the Will.

5. The case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition was that in a case of this nature, where the petitioner disputes the genuineness of the Will relied on by respondents 7 and 8, transfer of registry is not contemplated under the Rules until the rights of parties are adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. It was also the case of the petitioner that at any rate, transfer of registry ought not to have been effected by the competent authority under the Rules without notice to the petitioner who is one of the heirs of the deceased owners of the property as per the relevant law of succession. It was specifically contended by the petitioner in the writ petition that the Rules provide for notice to the heirs of the deceased owners when transfer of registry is claimed on th