5. Secondly, the petitioner was the person against whom the order of restoration of land was passed and the petitioner was not made a party respondent in the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that a direction has been issued by this Court directing the Circle Officer to execute the order of restoration of land in favour of the dead writ petitioner vide para 15 of the order under review. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner is one of the aggrieved persons. However, he does not dispute the fact that the order of restoration of land has attained finality and no petition challenging the order of restoration is pending before any competent court of law. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in AIR 2003 BOMBAY 228 (Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. Vs. Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd.) as well as judgment passed in the case of “ M/s Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. and Others Vs. Assam Board of Revenue, Guwahati and Others ” reported in AIR 2003 GAUHATI 119 , to submit that in such circumstances the petitioner even if not a party to the writ petition, the review petition at her instance is maintainable. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private opposite party, on the other hand, does not dispute the fact that the original writ petitioner had already expired when on 05.04.2018 the order was passed in the writ petition, but he submits that he had no knowledge about the death of the writ petitioner and the writ petition was argued when the case was taken up. Learned counsel also does not dispute the fact that any order passed in favour of or against dead person, is a nullity. However he submits that the present petition, at the
