son of Late.Durairaj Pillai appeared before the second respondent through their counsel and were heard. However, those legal heirs have not independently challenged the impugned proceedings. In such circumstances, it can hardly be stated that the petitioner was in any manner prejudiced by the non-impleadment of the legal heirs of the dead persons and it is for the petitioner to establish that he has a right over the property by producing proper documents. Such of those parties, who were respondents in the revision petition, had received notices, appeared before the authority and only few of them had filed objections. This has been clearly recorded in the impugned proceedings by the first respondent. In fact, a direction was issued to them to give requisite details so that the Village Administrative Officer and Revenue Inspector could obtain the exact address and particulars from those legal heirs and this was not complied with by those parties. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent, impugned in this writ petition cannot be faulted in this regard. At this stage of the matter, it is worthwhile to extract the operative portion of the impugned order and it reads as follows:
