JUDGMENT : JAY SENGUPTA. J. 1. This is an application praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to quash the orders dated 21.01.2020, 13.06.2022 and 02.09.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District to change the name of the recorded tenant in respect of the land bearing Survey No.259/13, situated at Prothrapur Village, under Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman District, from INOX Air Products Limited to INOX Air Products Private Limited. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner under undergone a mere name change from Inox Air Products Limited to Inox Air Products Private Limited. There is no change in the nature of the entity. The petitioner has been a tenant in respect of the survey No.259/13 situated at Prothrapur Village, under Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman District. Pursuant to such change, the petitioner made a representation before the concerned Tehsildar on 15.11.2022 to update/ change the name in the revenue records. On 02.06.2023, the petitioner gave a reminder to the Tehsildar in this regard. The Tehsildar is duty to bound to maintain the records properly thereby incorporating the correct name of the tenant in the records in terms of section 83 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966. Subsequently, due to inadvertence, the petitioner also made a prayer before the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman to correct the name in terms of section 87 of the said Regulation. The prayer was turned by the Deputy Commissioner, inter alia, on the ground that there was no error contained in the records. Therefore, Regulation 87 could not have been invoked. Reliance is also placed on an unreported decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dated 29.02.2020 passed in Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited vs. State of H.P. and another, CWP No.1293 of 2019. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Administration submits as follows. Neither Regulation 84 nor the Regulation 87, the only two provisions which deal with correction of land records, can be invoked in the present case. Moreover the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is appealable. 4. I have heard the counsels for the parties and have perused the writ petition. 5. First, it has admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner was approached due to a mistaken understanding that Regulation 87 could be invoked in this case. Moreover the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is appealable. 4. I have heard the counsels for the parties and have perused the writ petition. 5. First, it has admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner was approached due to a mistaken understanding that Regulation 87 could be invoked in this case. 6. Regulation 84 deals with changes to be made in the land records if a person acquires a property by certain means while Regulation 87 empowers the Deputy Commissioner to correct the records if there is clerical or any other error in the records. Therefore, none of these provisions would apply in this case. 7. Admittedly, there is no change in the entity i.e., petitioner whose name had been recorded as tenant in respect of the property. There is merely a change in the name of the petitioner consequent upon conversion from a public limited to a private limited company. 8. Regulation 83, on the other hand, requires that the record of rights shall be maintained in accordance with law, which would include the name of all tenants together with survey no/plot no. held by each of them and their area. 9. By a necessary corollary, it is imperative that if there is a change in the name of the tenant, the same shall be incorporated in the land records by the concerned authority being the Tehsildar in the present case. 10. It further appears that a representation made before the Tehsildar has not been answered. 11. In view of the above, the respondent no.2 is directed to consider the above referred representation of the petitioner in the light of the above observations expeditiously and in accordance with law, preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order, after hearing the petitioner and to intimate the decision to the petitioner within a fortnight therefrom. 12. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 13. Since affidavits have not been called for, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. 14. Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of usual formalities.