Judgment : This Writ Petition is filed feeling aggrieved by memo No.B/946/2012, dated 21.06.2013 of respondent No.2, whereby he has rejected the petitioner’s application for mutation of her name and the names of her minor children in respect of half share of various extents of lands in Survey Nos.10, 25 to 34 and 140 of Ankushapur Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. I have heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana area). The petitioner is the wife of B.Narasimha Reddy. It is her pleaded case that late B.Chandramma and her husband-late B.Narasimha Reddy were the joint owners and pattadars of the lands in the above-mentioned Survey numbers. As the said couple had no issues, they have adopted late B.Laxma Reddy. Late B.Laxma Reddy also had no children. He has adopted the petitioner’s husband, B.Narasimha Reddy. The petitioner further pleaded that her husband-B.Narasimha Reddy has succeeded to the share of late B.Laxma Reddy and he has, accordingly, filed a ceiling declaration in C.C.No.E/1477/75, while late B.Chandramma filed her separate ceiling declaration in C.C.No.E/1478/75 showing her half share in the family properties and that the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad, has passed an order on 27.01.1977 declaring B.Chandramma as non-surplus land holder. The petitioner further pleaded that late B.Chandramma has executed Will, dated 09.07.2009, bequeathing half share in her properties in favour of the petitioner and her minor children. However, all the properties were mutated in the name of the petitioner’s husband-B.Narasimha Reddy. After the death of B.Chandramma on 09.03.2012, the petitioner made an application on 09.08.2012 before respondent No.2 for mutating her name and the names of her minor children in the record of rights in respect of half share of the properties held by late B.Chandramma. The petitioner’s husband, whose name has been entered in the record of rights as the owner and possessor of the entire property, is also stated to have given notarised affidavit before respondent No.2 conveying no objection for mutating half of the properties standing in his name in the record of rights in favour of the petitioner and her minor children. As the petitioner’s application was not disposed of, she has filed Writ Petition No.34749 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 09.11.2012, directing respondent No.2 to consider her application for mutation. As the petitioner’s application was not disposed of, she has filed Writ Petition No.34749 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 09.11.2012, directing respondent No.2 to consider her application for mutation. Purporting to act on the said direction, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned memo. While rejecting the petitioner’s application for mutation of her name and the names of her minor children, respondent No.2 has stated the following reasons in the impugned memo: “The petitioner has not submitted the Legal Heir Certificate for grant of Succession. The Will deed submitted by the petitioner is not a registered one. Only registered documents can be considered as per ROR Rules. As per available revenue records i.e., pahani, right from the year 1989-90 till date all the subject lands except for Survey No.140 stands patta in name of Sri B.Narasimha Reddy, S/o Laxma Reddy who is the husband of the petitioner. Further, the Survey No.140 has been amended in favour of the petitioner in year 2003-04.” At the hearing, Sri M.Damodar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that on the admitted facts of the case, where there is no dispute about the petitioner’s succession, there is no need for her for obtaining Legal Heir Certificate for grant of succession; that the ground taken by respondent No.2 in the impugned memo that only the registered documents can be considered under the extant Rules is wholly misconceived as, under law a Will is not required to be registered; and that having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s husband, in whose name the properties stand in the record of rights, himself has filed a notarised affidavit conveying his no objection for mutation of the properties in the name of the petitioner and her minor children, respondent No.2 has committed a serious illegality in rejecting the petitioner’s application. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana area) sought to sustain the impugned memo of respondent No.2 by referring to Rule-9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the 1971 Act’). Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana area) sought to sustain the impugned memo of respondent No.2 by referring to Rule-9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the 1971 Act’). She has submitted that under Rule-9(1)(a)(i) of the 1971 Act, Succession certificate is required for change of names in the record of rights; that under sub-section (ii) thereof, only registered documents will be considered for mutation; that before mutation of the names, a general notice has to be issued and an enquiry has to be held under subsection (ii) of clause-(c) of Rule-9(1) of the 1971 Act; and that no such procedure appeared to have been followed in the instant case. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the record. Under Section 4 of the 1971 Act, if any person acquires any right over an immovable property by way of succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a Court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, etc, he/she is entitled to approach the Recording authority (Tahsildar) within ninety days from the date of such acquisition. Under Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act, on receipt of such intimation, the Recording authority shall determine as to whether and if so, in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence thereof and shall carry out the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination. Under sub-section-(3) thereof, the Recording authority shall, before carrying out any amendment in the record of rights, issue a notice in writing to all the persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other persons, whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or affected, thereby, to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out. Such notice shall be published in the manner as prescribed by the Rules. The Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989 (for short ‘the Rules’), envisage the procedure for enquiry, preparation of the record of rights and their updating. Rule-5 of the Rules prescribes the manner in which the notice has to be published. Rule-19 of the Rules prescribes the form in which such notice has to be issued (Form-VIII). The Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989 (for short ‘the Rules’), envisage the procedure for enquiry, preparation of the record of rights and their updating. Rule-5 of the Rules prescribes the manner in which the notice has to be published. Rule-19 of the Rules prescribes the form in which such notice has to be issued (Form-VIII). After the notices were issued and duly published, the enquiry needs to be held by the Recording authority as prescribed under Rules-6 to 8 of the Rules. Under sub-clause (i) of clause-(1)(a) of Rule-9 of the Rules, the Recording authority shall pass orders in all cases requiring change of Registry necessitated by the death of registered holder i.e., succession by heirship, if succession is not disputed. With regard to the entry of the names of the heirs, the names of all the heirs entitled to shares in the property should be registered. Under sub-clause-(ii) thereof, all cases requiring the change of registry necessitated by a sale, gift, etc., shall be accepted if they are supported by registered documents and if there is no dispute with regard to such documents. Thus, in cases falling under Rule-9(1)(a)(i) of the Rules, namely; claim by way of succession, the Recording authority shall hold a summary enquiry as to who has the right to succeed to the property of the deceased registered holder according to the principles of Law of Succession, which governs the case, and give a notice to all the persons known or believed to be interested to the effect that change in the record of rights will be made in the name of the person found to be entitled. The Rule further envisages that unless a declaration is filed, within three months from the date of notice, by any person objecting to the registration stating that he has instituted a suit in civil Court to establish a superior title and authenticated copy of the suit is produced, such change has to be made at the expiration of three months. If a declaration is filed, the result of the suit should be awaited before taking further action. A careful analysis of Rule-9 of the Rules would reveal that a fair amount of discretion is vested in the Recording authority to examine the claims for mutation made on the strength of succession or survivorship, in case of non-testamentary disposal of properties. If a declaration is filed, the result of the suit should be awaited before taking further action. A careful analysis of Rule-9 of the Rules would reveal that a fair amount of discretion is vested in the Recording authority to examine the claims for mutation made on the strength of succession or survivorship, in case of non-testamentary disposal of properties. In case of acquisition of rights by way of deeds of transfer by sale, gift, etc., an obligation is cast on the Recording authority to hold a summary enquiry as to the persons who had succeeded to the property of the deceased registered holder by applying the principles of Law of Succession governing the case. Unless the Recording authority feels that the rival claims made before him require adjudication by a competent civil Court, he is entitled to deal with such claims and arrive at his own conclusion as to the person who is entitled to succeed to the property. However, if any person has approached the civil Court by way of a suit and gives an intimation in this regard within the 90 days time, as prescribed under sub-clause-(ii) of clause-(c) of Rule-9(1) of the Rules, the Recording authority shall await the decision of the civil Court. This being the Scheme underlying the provisions of the Act and the Rules, respondent No.2 has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him. The petitioner filed copies of the two notices, one issued under Rule-19(1) calling for objections for the application filed by the petitioner and fixing 06.10.2012 as the date of enquiry and also another notice, dated 20.11.2012, regarding succession. The petitioner specifically pleaded that no objections have been received in reply to these notices. Even the impugned memo also does not refer to respondent No.2 receiving any such objections. In the light of these facts, let me now consider whether the reasons assigned by respondent No.2 in rejecting the petitioner’s request for mutation of her name and the names of her minor children in the record of rights are sustainable or not. The first reason assigned by respondent No.2 is that the petitioner has not submitted Legal Heir Certificate for grant of succession. Neither in the Act nor under the Rules, it is laid down that obtaining Legal Heir Certificate is a sine qua non for mutation. The first reason assigned by respondent No.2 is that the petitioner has not submitted Legal Heir Certificate for grant of succession. Neither in the Act nor under the Rules, it is laid down that obtaining Legal Heir Certificate is a sine qua non for mutation. On the contrary, as discussed herein before, under sub-clause (ii) of clause-(c) of Rule-9(1) of the Rules, the Mandal Revenue Officer himself is entitled to examine the right of succession to the property of the deceased registered holder. In the instant case, the necessity for respondent No.2 even to decide the right of succession is obviated for the simple reason that the petitioner is relying upon a Will albeit unregistered. Therefore, in the absence of any statutory requirement, the request of the petitioner for mutation, on the ground of her not obtaining Legal Heir Certificate, cannot be rejected. As regards the reason assigned by respondent No.2 that the Will is not registered, the same is equally unsustainable. Sub-clause (ii) of clause (1) (a) of Rule-9 of the Rules does not refer to a Will while stipulating that registered documents must be produced. The obvious reason for exclusion of Wills under this clause is that under law, a Will is not compulsorily registerable unlike in cases of non-testamentary dispositions such as sale, gifts, etc. Therefore, this reason is wholly meritless. In the impugned memo, respondent No.2 has clearly stated that all the properties stand in the name of Sri B.Narasimha Reddy, the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner specifically pleaded that her husband has filed a notarised affidavit, dated 18.10.2012, before respondent No.2 and she has filed a copy of the same in the Writ Petition. A perusal of this affidavit shows that B.Narasimha Reddy has conceded the right of the petitioner and her minor children to half share in the property admeasuring Acs.65-11 guntas on the strength of the Will executed by late B.Narasimha Reddy in their favour. When the very person in whose name the properties stand in the record of rights himself has gone before respondent No.2 and agreed for mutation of half share in his properties in favour of the petitioner and her minor children, it is astonishing that respondent No.2 still rejected the application of the petitioner. Such an approach on the part of respondent No.2 is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary, to say the least. Such an approach on the part of respondent No.2 is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary, to say the least. Not only that, no objections were received in response to the notices issued by respondent No.2, but, the very registered owner himself conceded to the right of the petitioner and her minor children for mutation in respect of half share in the properties. Such being the case, the attitude of respondent No.2 in rejecting the petitioner’s application, on flimsy and jejune grounds, is wholly reprehensible, which has driven the petitioner to this needless litigation. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to mutate the name of the petitioner and her minor children in respect of half of the properties which stand in the name of the petitioner’s husband-B.Narasimha Reddy, in pursuance of her application, dated 10.08.2012, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.2 is saddled with costs of Rs.5,000/- which shall be paid to the petitioner from his personal funds. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.29097 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.