ORDER : K. Vijaya Lakshmi, J. 1. This writ petition is filed "to declare the action of the 4th respondent in mutating the name of the 6th respondent in place of the petitioner in the revenue records pertaining to the lands in Sy. No. 371/1 admeasuring Ac. 5.00 cents of Kothamarikuppam village, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District and in not acting upon the representation made by the petitioner dated 07.02.2017 to the 2nd and 3rd respondents, as illegal and arbitrary." 2. No. 371/1 admeasuring Ac. 5.00 cents of Kothamarikuppam village, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District and in not acting upon the representation made by the petitioner dated 07.02.2017 to the 2nd and 3rd respondents, as illegal and arbitrary." 2. Case of the petitioner is that, one K.B. Govinda Raju, was the original owner and possessor of the subject land; he sold the same to one Manikyam vide registered sale deed dated 13.07.1982; thereafter, the said Manikyam obtained pattadar passbook and title deed from the Tahsildar respondent; petitioner has purchased the subject lands vide registered sale deed dated 22.08.1988 from the said Manikyam; thereafter, she approached the revenue authorities for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed; after due enquiry, the 4th respondent has granted the same by mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records; petitioner has raised mango garden in the subject land; subsequently, she mortgaged the subject land in favour of one Smt. Kamaladevi by virtue of a registered mortgage deed dated 12.01.2009; as the petitioner was in need of some more money, she entered into an agreement of sale dated 20.04.2011 with the 5th respondent and received part of sale consideration; after receipt of the part amount from the 5th respondent, she redeemed the registered mortgage deed executed in favour of Kamala Devi on 27.04.2011; the 5th respondent promised to pay the balance consideration at the time of registration of the sale deed; when the registration of the subject land was refused, she filed WP No. 2805 of 2014 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 04.02.2014 directing the Sub-Registrar to receive and process the same and if the document warrants denial of registration, the Sub Registrar was directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908; the Sub-Registrar passed an order on 11.03.2014 stating that the subject land is in prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act; challenging the same, petitioner filed another writ petition i.e., WP No. 37352 of 2014; even before filing of the said writ petition, the 5th respondent has colluded with the 4th respondent and the Tahsildar managed to incorporate the name of his son, the 6th respondent into the revenue records as the owner and possessor of the subject land; the 5th respondent never came forward to get the subject land registered in his favour; hence, he gave a report dated 07.02.2017 to respondents 2 and 3 about the illegal mutation of the name of the 6th respondent in the revenue records without any notice to the petitioner and without any transfer of title from the petitioner; but no action has been taken pursuant to the same and the petitioner is not able to alienate the subject land, as the revenue records reflect the name of the 6th respondent and the Registration Department will not register any sale deed as long as the revenue records are not corrected. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard Sri K. Vinod Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 to 4 and Sri S.V. Munireddy, learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6. 4. Counter-affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, stating inter-alia that the petitioner sold the land to the 5th respondent in the year 2011 and the same was reduced into writing by way of unregistered document dated 19.04.2011 and possession of the land was also given to the 5th respondent by taking sale consideration; since 2011, the respondents 5 and 6 are in possession and enjoyment of the subject land; subject land is classified as dotted land and hence, could not be registered in Sub Registrar's office; mutations are effected under the provisions of A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Rules, 1989 and if the petitioner is having any grievance, she ought to have filed an appeal before the Sub Collector against issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the 6th respondent. 5. Respondents 5 and 6 filed counter-affidavit stating inter-alia that the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale of the subject property with the 5th respondent on 20.04.2011 and the petitioner received substantial amount from the 5th respondent and redeemed the registered mortgage deed; she executed the cowl deed/document dated 18.09.2011 by fixing the lease deed for 99 years from 18.09.2011 to 17.09.2110 and handed over the possession of the subject property to the 5th respondent with absolute rights; if the petitioner is aggrieved by an entry in the revenue records, she has to file a suit under Special Relief Act, 1963; they developed the land by obtaining loans and that the petitioner is only entitled for balance of sale consideration, if any and he is ready to get the land registered in his favour. 6. 6. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the counter-affidavits filed by the Tahsildar (Respondent No. 4) and the non-official respondents (Respondents 5 and 6) stating that the balance amount is due to the petitioner; if really cowl deed is executed much before the issuance of reply notice dated 20.03.2015 by the 5th respondent, the said fact ought to have been mentioned therein; this itself shows that the alleged cowl deed is a fabricated document; agreement of sale cannot be the basis for mutation in the revenue records; respondents 5 and 6 have stated that the basis for mutation is the cowl deed, but the Tahsildar did not mention about the existence of the cowl deed and the alleged cowl is not referred to by the unofficial respondents in any of the correspondence and prays to take appropriate action against the 4th respondent. 7. According to Section 5 (1) of the A.P. Rights in Land & Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'), on receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4, the Tahsildar shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence therefor and shall carryout the amendment in the record of rights. According to sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act, the Recording Authority shall before carrying out any amendment in the record of right under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) issue a notice in writing to all 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 thereon or affected thereby to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out and the recording authority shall consider every objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry as may be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as he deems fit and such an order shall be communicated to the person concerned. 8. Counter-affidavit of the 4th respondent does not show that notice was issued to the petitioner before effecting mutation in favour of the 6th respondent. Admittedly, in this case, no notice whatsoever has been issued to the petitioner herein before updating and amending the record of rights. 9. 8. Counter-affidavit of the 4th respondent does not show that notice was issued to the petitioner before effecting mutation in favour of the 6th respondent. Admittedly, in this case, no notice whatsoever has been issued to the petitioner herein before updating and amending the record of rights. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as the principles of natural justice have been violated in the present case, the 4th respondent is directed to issue notice to all the concerned persons, who are interested in the subject land, make appropriate enquiry and carryout the corrections in record of rights with such determination in accordance with sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such enquiry is completed by the Tahsildar-4th respondent, status-quo with regard to entries in the revenue records has to be maintained. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.