JUDGMENT N.S. Sanjay Gowda, J. - This writ petition arises out of a proceeding relating to the entry of the 4th respondent's name in the CTS records. 2. These facts are not in dispute: The 4th respondent claims that her grandmother Neelamma purchased a property measuring 40 ft. X 40 ft. from one Venkatasubbaiah under a sale deed dated 16.12.1963. It is not in dispute that the sale deed dated 16.12.1963 did not identify the property with reference to CTS number and the property was sought to be identified only by the boundaries mentioned therein. 3. It is the case of the 4th respondent that one Venkatalakshmma, the owner of CTS No.688 had instituted O.S.No.543/1986 against her father contending that her father had encroached upon a portion of CTS No.688. 4. It was contended that during the pendency of the suit, the aDLR was appointed as a Court Commissioner to determine whether there was any encroachment on to CTS No.688 and after an inspection, the aDLR had submitted a report that there was no encroachment and the father of the 4th respondent was residing in CTS No.701. 5. The Trial Court, ultimately, dismissed O.S.No.543/1986 filed by Venkatalakshmamma. an appeal in R.a.No.44/1995 filed by Venkatalakshmamma against the said dismissal, was also dismissed on 24.10.2001. 6. after the dismissal of R.a.No.44/1995, the 4th respondent made an application to enter her name in respect of CTS No.701. Learned counsel admits that the basis of this request was the sale deed dated 16.12.1963 which had been executed in favour of the 4th respondent's grandmother, Neelamma and also the decree of dismissal passed in O.S.No.543/1986. 7. The authorities, acceded to the said request and proceeded to sub divide CTS No.701 into 701/1 and 701/2 and thereafter, entered the name of the 4th respondent in respect of CTS No.701/2. 8. Thus, from the above narration of facts, which are not in dispute, it is clear that on the basis of a sale deed dated 16.12.1963, the 4th respondent invoked her right to get her name entered in the CTS records for the first time in the year 2001 i.e., after lapse of 38 years. 9. admittedly, the sale deed under which the 4th respondent's grandmother purchased a property measuring 40 ft x 40 ft has not been identified with any CTS number. 9. admittedly, the sale deed under which the 4th respondent's grandmother purchased a property measuring 40 ft x 40 ft has not been identified with any CTS number. admittedly, as per the CTS records, originally the name of Ballari Urban Development authority had been entered and thereafter from the year 1996, the name of Y.D.Lakshman Rao, Rama Rao, Narayan Rao and Krishamurthy Rao were entered. It is thus clear that the name of the vendor of the 4th respondent's grandmother i.e., Venkata Subbaiah had not been entered in the CTS records relating to CTS No.701 at any point of time. 10. The petitioners herein claimed to have purchased CTS No.701 under a registered sale deed dated 03.01.2002 from respondents 5 to 10. It is not in dispute that the name of respondents 5 to 10 had been entered in the CTS records in respect of CTS No.701. Since, the name of the petitioners' vendor was existing in respect of CTS No.701, on the execution of sale deed by respondents 5 to 10, the authorities were bound to enter the name of the petitioners in respect of CTS No.701. 11. However, as stated above, in the instant case, on a request made by the 4th respondent to enter her name on the basis of a sale deed dated 16.12.1963 and on the basis of dismissal of a civil suit in O.S.No.543/1986, the 4th respondent's name has been entered. 12. It cannot be in dispute that in order to have the 4th respondent's name to be entered in the CTS records, she must possess a right over the suit property and that must be evidenced by a registered instrument in relation to that property. admittedly, since the 4th respondent's sale deed did not mention that CTS No.701 was being conveyed, obviously the authorities could not have mutated the name of the 4th respondent in the CTS records in respect of CTS No.701. 13. The aDLR, before whom the petitioners had filed an appeal has rightly come to the conclusion that on the basis of the sale deed dated 16.12.1963, the name of the 4th respondent could not be entered in respect of CTS No.701. 14. 13. The aDLR, before whom the petitioners had filed an appeal has rightly come to the conclusion that on the basis of the sale deed dated 16.12.1963, the name of the 4th respondent could not be entered in respect of CTS No.701. 14. However, the JDLR in exercise of his revisional powers has erred in coming to the conclusion that the name of the 4th respondent was required to be entered into on the basis of the sale deed dated 16.12.1963 and also the report of the aDLR which had been filed in O.S.No.543/1986. Since an entry in the revenue record can be made only on the basis of a registered instrument relatable to the revenue record, the claim of the 4th respondent to have her name entered on the basis of a sale deed which did not indicate that it related to CTS No.701, cannot be accepted. 15. In my view, therefore, the order of the JDLR dated 11.03.2010 annexure-L is required to be quashed and the order of the DDLR directing the deletion of name of the 4th respondent and the sub division of CTS No.701 into CTS Nos.701/1 and 701/2 is required to be restored and the names of the petitioners are to be consequentially entered in the CTS records. 16. The writ petition is allowed, 17. Notwithstanding this order, it is open for the 4th respondent to approach the Civil Court and seek for an appropriate declaratory decree and establish her right in respect of the property that her grandmother had purchased and which the 4th respondent contends is relatable to CTS No.701. 18. It is needless to state that in the event the 4th respondent were to get a declaratory decree in her favour, the entries in the revenue records shall abide by the said decree. 19. any observation made in this writ petition shall not be construed as an opinion rendered on the merits of the claim of the 4th respondent.