JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to impugned order Na.Ka.No.F2/3120/2014 dated 29.06.2016 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and add the petitioner name in village record in New Survey No.54/16.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to impugned order Na.Ka.No.F2/3120/2014 dated 29.06.2016 issued by the first respondent and to quash the same and add the petitioner name in village record in New Survey No.54/16. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the Government issued house site patta to the petitioner in S.No.54/1, New Survey No.54/16 and the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Since the petitioner misplaced the said patta, he applied for certified copy of the same and at that time, the petitioner found that his land was mentioned as Natham Poromboke in the village records. In this regard, the petitioner made petition before the third respondent and the same was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the first respondent, however, vide impugned order, the first respondent dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted house site patta during the year 1975 and till the impugned order was passed, patta was not cancelled on the ground of violation of the conditions and further submitted that without cancellation of the house site patta, rejecting the petitioner-s request for entering his name in the village record is not sustainable one. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent did not dispute the facts submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, vehemently opposed for the relief sought for in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is owning vast extent of land in different area and petitioner is not a landless poor. He further submitted that the petitioner used the assigned land as cattle shed without constructing house and not utilized the land for which assignment was granted to him. Hence, granting house site patta for the petitioner is contrary to RSO 21(1). 5. The facts in the present case is not in dispute. He further submitted that the petitioner used the assigned land as cattle shed without constructing house and not utilized the land for which assignment was granted to him. Hence, granting house site patta for the petitioner is contrary to RSO 21(1). 5. The facts in the present case is not in dispute. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner was granted house site patta during the year 1975. Thereafter petitioner made claim before the Revenue Officials to enter his name in the revenue records, however, the same was objected by the fifth respondent. The petitioner-s claim and the fifth respondent-s objection were heard together and the impugned order was passed. 6. However, the issue that arise for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether without cancelling the house site patta granted to the petitioner during the year 1975, can the Revenue Officials reject the petitioner-s request for entering his name in the village record. Admittedly, without cancelling the house site patta granted to the petitioner, rejecting the petitioner-s request for entering his name in the village record is not sustainable one. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the order impugned in this writ petition. 7. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.06.2016 issued by the first respondent is hereby set aside. The Official respondents are directed to add the petitioner-s name in village record in New Survey No.54/16, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.