partition deed, a rectification deed also came to be registered in the year 2012 and the correction was carried out. The learned counsel further submitted that the earlier patta that was granted in patta No.1732 was jointly issued in the name of Chinnasamy Thevar and the fourth respondent. The above said Subbusamy, taking advantage of the absence of the fourth respondent, managed to get patta under the Land Development Scheme with regard to the property that belonged to the fourth respondent. The learned counsel submitted that this happened at the time when the UDR Scheme was undertaken and this patta was issued without any right or title in favour of the said Subbusamy. The learned counsel further submitted that the said Subbusamy is said to have subsequently given the property on oral lease in favour of the petitioner. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner has absolutely no right to resist the issuance of patta in favour of the fourth respondent and the first respondent, after going through the entire documents, has rightly cancelled the patta issued in favour of Subbusamy and has directed the patta to be issued in the name of the fourth respondent. The learned counsel submitted that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the first respondent.
