O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records of the first respondent's impugned order dated 28.01.2004 made in Ref.No.D.Dis.R.P.7/2003 (K4/21004/02) and to quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father purchased the subject properties and after his death, the subject properties devolve around his legal heirs including the petitioner. During his lifetime, the petitioner's father filed O.S.Nos.988/85, 158/86 and 330/86 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli for declaration and for injunction and the said suits were dismissed on 18.11.1991 by way of a common order on the ground that the petitioner's father has to file a suit for partition.

3.The further case of the petitioner is that patta pass book was issued in favour of the petitioner's father during the year 1973. Whileso, the Tahsildhar, Palayamkottai without giving any notice to the petitioner's father included the name of the second respondent and another person in the patta on 11.06.1985 and also deleted some properties from the patta. Hence, the petitioner's father filed O.S.No.513/1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, as against the Tahsildhar, Palayamkottai, District Collector, Tirunelveli for declaration that the order of the Tahsildhar is invalid and for consequential injunction. During the pendancy of the suit, the petitioner's father died and his legal heirs were impleaded in the suit. The said suit was dismissed on 20.09.1994. Further as against order dated 11.6.85, the petitioner along with his brothers and sisters filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli and the said appeal was dismissed on 04.03.1997.

4.The further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, they preferred revision before the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli and the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli, vide order dated 15.07.1997 held that the second respondent has no right in the property. Pursuant to the said order, the Tahsildhar, Palayamkottai, removed the name of the second respondent from the patta. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli. The said appeal was dismissed on 04.12.2001 and challenging the same, the second respondent filed revision before the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli and the said revision was dismissed on 22.05.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent filed revision before the first respondent and the first respondent vide impugned order dated 28.01.2004 allowed the revision filed by the second respondent. Hence, this petition.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that initially, the second respondent's name was included in the patta which was issued in favour of the petitioner's father. Thereafter, the matter was adjudicated before the appropriate Authorities and the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli, vide order dated 15.07.1997 held that the second respondent has no right in the property. Pursuant to the said order, the Tahsildhar, Palayamkottai, removed the name of the second respondent from the patta.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that there is no provision available to the second respondent to prefer second revision before the first respondent. In the absence of any provision, the second respondent preferring revision before the first respondent and the first respondent allowing the same is non est in law.

7.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent did not dispute the legal position.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that during the pendancy of this writ petition, the second respondent died and his legal heirs are impleaded as respondents 3 to 6 in this writ petition. The learned counsel further submitted that patta is not a title. In the absence of ti