JUDGMENT : G. Narendar, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner's husband had stood as guarantor to the loans obtained by their son-in-law and that the loans were obtained from the 5th and 6th respondent. That on account of the advancing age, her husband gifted certain properties under gift deed dated 02.04.2011 in favour of the petitioner. That subsequently on 13.06.2011, the petitioner's husband passed away. That in the year 2012, the petitioner sought for mutation of her name in the revenue records. That the same was objected to by the respondents 5 and 6 on the premise that her husband had acted as a guarantor and hence the loans not being discharged, the bankers were entitled to move against the property of the guarantor and the 4th respondent admitting the objections was pleased to reject plea of the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and the third respondent was also pleased to affirm the order passed by 4th respondent/ Tahasildar. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner who was pleased to concur with the orders passed by his subordinate authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter the petitioner's son-in-law cleared the loan amounts and pursuant to the same, the 5th and 6th respondents have issued no due certificates vide Annexures-F and FI. After the receipt of the no due certificates, the petitioner made one more application to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar requesting that the revenue entries be mutated in her name. That the Tahsildar without adverting to the new development or the changed circumstances has blindly issued an endorsement directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court and obtain a declaration in view of the fact that the matter had been adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner and hence he was not entitled to rehear the matter. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the endorsement does not stand the test of reason or logic and that the Tahsildar ought to have reconsidered the issue in the light of the changed circumstances in view of the clearance of the loans and no due certificates issued by the respective banks. 6. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the endorsement does not stand the test of reason or logic and that the Tahsildar ought to have reconsidered the issue in the light of the changed circumstances in view of the clearance of the loans and no due certificates issued by the respective banks. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would reiterate the stands adopted by the Tahsildar under the impugned endorsement dated 18.02.2015. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tahsildar erred in not taking note of the subsequent development that is clearance of the loans. The earlier application having been rejected on consideration of the objections raised by the bankers and the said bankers having issued no due certificates, prudence would require that the authority ought to have considered it afresh and ought not to have relegated the party to the Civil Court. There being no lis with regard to the title of the property, it is not conceivable as to how or what relief the petitioner could have sought for from the Civil Court. Admittedly, there is no third party denying the title nor is there anyone asserting title or interest in themselves. In that view of the matter, the direction by the Tahsildar to approach the Civil Court and thereby obtain a declaration is wholly unsustainable. The respondents have not disputed the certificates issued by the bankers with regard to the clearance of the loans. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned endorsement is unsustainable and interference is called for. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement is quashed. There shall be a further direction to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar to reconsider the application afresh in the light of the observations made herein above. Such reconsideration shall be within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Registry to forward a copy of this order to the concerned Tahsildar. 9. Petition stands ordered accordingly.