This Writ Petition is filed feeling aggrieved by memo No.B/946/2012, dated 21.06.2013 of respondent No.2, whereby he has rejected the petitioner’s application for mutation of her name and the names of her minor children in respect of half share of various extents of lands in Survey Nos.10, 25 to 34 and 140 of Ankushapur Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

I have heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana area).

The petitioner is the wife of B.Narasimha Reddy. It is her pleaded case that late B.Chandramma and her husband-late B.Narasimha Reddy were the joint owners and pattadars of the lands in the above-mentioned Survey numbers. As the said couple had no issues, they have adopted late B.Laxma Reddy. Late B.Laxma Reddy also had no children. He has adopted the petitioner’s husband, B.Narasimha Reddy.

The petitioner further pleaded that her husband-B.Narasimha Reddy has succeeded to the share of late B.Laxma Reddy and he has, accordingly, filed a ceiling declaration in C.C.No.E/1477/75, while late B.Chandramma filed her separate ceiling declaration in C.C.No.E/1478/75 showing her half share in the family properties and that the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad, has passed an order on 27.01.1977 declaring B.Chandramma as non-surplus land holder. The petitioner further pleaded that late B.Chandramma has executed Will, dated 09.07.2009, bequeathing half share in her properties in favour of the petitioner and her minor children. However, all the properties were mutated in the name of the petitioner’s husband-B.Narasimha Reddy. After the death of B.Chandramma on 09.03.2012, the petitioner made an application on 09.08.2012 before respondent No.2 for mutating her name and the names of her minor children in the record of rights in respect of half share of the properties held by late B.Chandramma. The petitioner’s husband, whose name has been entered in the record of rights as the owner and possessor of the entire property, is also stated to have given notarised affidavit before respondent No.2 conveying no objection for mutating half of the properties standing in his name in the record of rights in favour of the petitioner and her minor children. As the petitioner’s application was not disposed of, she has filed Writ Petition No.34749 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 09.11.2012, directing respondent No.2 to consider her application for mutation. Purporting to act on the said direction, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned memo.

While rejecting the petitioner’s application for mutation of her name and the names of her minor children, respondent No.2 has stated the following reasons in the impugned memo:

“The petitioner has not submitted the Legal Heir Certificate for grant of Succession.

The Will deed submitted by the petitioner is not a registered one. Only registered documents can be considered as per ROR Rules.

As per available revenue records i.e., pahani, right from the year 1989-90 till date all the subject lands except for Survey No.140 stands patta in name of Sri B.Narasimha Reddy, S/o Laxma Reddy who is the husband of the petitioner. Further, the Survey No.140 has been amended in favour of the petitioner in year 2003-04.”

At the hearing, Sri M.Damodar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that on the admitted facts of the case, where there is no dispute about the petitioner’s succession, there is no need for her for obtaining Legal Heir Certificate for grant of succession; that the ground taken by respondent No.2 in the impugned memo that only the registered documents can be considered under the extant Rules is wholly misconceived as, under law a Will is not required to be registered; and that having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s husband, in whose name the properties stand in the record of rights, himself has filed a notarised affidavit conveying his no o