JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come up to this Court for deciding representation dated 15.5.2015. 3. Under which provision such a representation can be entertained in the Land Revenue Act has not been indicated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the death of the tenure holder the petitioner being successor his name should be mutated in the record. 5. If the petitioner is desirous of his name being recorded in the revenue record, the petitioner ought to have filed an application under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. Random representation, which is not prescribed under the Rules or Act, cannot be directed to be decided. 6. The writ petition has no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.