THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15272 of 2007 ORDER: The husband of the petitioner, by name Vijayasaradhi was the owner of the premises in Door No.19/209 of Chilakapaludi, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. Vijayasaradhi is said to have died on 06.07.2001. Claiming that her husband executed a will in her favour on 15.09.1999, the petitioner submitted an application before Machilipatnam Municipality, the respondent herein, with a request to enter her name in the municipal records. An endorsement was made by the respondent on 12.06.2007 refusing to accede to the request of the petitioner. It was stated that an application with the same request was filed on 20.04.2007 by Ch.Kesava Mohana Rao and others and that O.S.No.186 of 2007 is pending before the civil Court. The petitioner challenges the said endorsement. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit reiterating the contents of the endorsement. It is stated that once there exists a civil dispute between various contenders, the entries in the revenue records cannot be altered. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The undisputed facts are that the name of the husband of the petitioner was recorded as owner of the premises and that he died on 06.07.2001. It is not known as to whether the property was self acquisition of Vijayasaradhi or an ancestral property and whether there exists any other legal heirs to him, other than the petitioner. The petitioner placed reliance upon a Will said to have been executed in her favour by her husband. In case there did not exist any other claims, the respondent would have been in a position to accede to the request of the petitioner. The record, however, discloses that several persons claiming to be the legal heirs of Vijayasaradhi submitted an application before the respondent with a request not to act upon the application of the petitioner. Further, a civil suit is pending. Under these circumstances, the respondent cannot be expected to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed and it is left open to the petitioner to renew her request depending upon the outcome of O.S.No.186 of 2007. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:17.03.2011 kdl