the name of P.Karandhan, who is the grand-father of the third respondent. The revenue records from fasli 1384 to 1388 stood in the name of P.Karandhan. The petitioner's wife purchased the property from one Sivanammal and not from Karandhan, who is the owner of the property. The document was created in Kerala in the name of Sivanammal. Bhakiyam, Son of Karandhan is no way connected with the property. A general power of attorney was executed by one Bhakiyam S/o.Karandhan. Instead of Bhakiyam Son of Karandhan, some other Karandhan was used for creating the documents. The power agent is the Manager of Shake Dawood and the said Shake Dawood is a witness in the power deed. The said Bhakiyam Son of Karandhan has given a statement before the Revenue Divisional Officer that the concerned does not belong to them. The revision petitioner is claiming to have a joint patta in Patta No.1110, but, there is no such patta in the revenue records. There was no reference to patta No.1110 in the subsequent sale deed. Only the original patta number was used. By creating two fabricated general power of attorney deeds, the property worth more than Rupees Ten Crores was grabbed by the revision petitioner. The tenant of the said Shake Dawood wants to park the two wheelers in the vacant site. The property is a vacant site. Only after verification of the records, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the impugned order. The Revenue Divisional Officer did not pass any order to alter the patta. Patta already stands in the name of the respondent and only in Town Survey Number, some other name was wrongly registered. The Revenue Divisional Officer has passed an order only to restore the original entry. The revision petitioner has to approach the civil Court and the revision petitioner is not entitled to approach this Court. If the impugned order is set aside, the proceedings initiated under the Land Grabbing Act, on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer will get affected and prayed the revision petition to be dismissed.
