one Balakrishnan. She also obtained electricity service connection in her name. The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent obtained a joint patta in her name along with the third respondent, wherein, she has been described as the wife of Rayar Pillai, whereas, she is the daughter of Rayar Pillai. Hence, the petitioner preferred an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai to delete the name of the third respondent in Patta No.2002 of Mathur Village. After complying all the legal formalities, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai set aside the order of the first respondent, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.A6/6475/05, dated 02.08.2006. As against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, the third respondent preferred revision before the second respondent. The second respondent without following the procedures contemplated under the Revenue Standing orders allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.T3/41846/07, dated 23.11.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Special Commissioner cum Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai. But the authority returned the revision stating that the Government has withdrawn his powers of the second revision. Hence, the petitioner filed this present writ petition. Pending this writ petition, the petitioner also died. The case of the petitioner was defended by her brother, who is said to be the legal heir of the petitioner and he was also impleaded as a party in this writ petition, as per the order of this Court, dated 19.01.2022.
