THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.2524 OF 2007 DATED 13th FEBRUARY, 2007 Between Kunjamur Tirunarayana Iyengar … Petitioner AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District and others. .… Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.2524 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioner ﬁled the instant writ petition assailing the order, dated 09.12.2006, passed by the ﬁrst respondent, whereby and whereunder the Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds (PPB/TD) issued to the petitioner herein were cancelled and the matter was remanded to the second respondent. The petitioner made the following allegations in the writ aﬃdavit. Grandfather of the petitioner purchased land admeasuring Acs.17.08 in survey Nos.112/2 and Acs.1.95 in survey No.112/1 situated at Panakam Village, known as Mulachenu Patteda from R.V.Subbaraian. These lands are allegedly covered by patta No.431. Grandfather executed a Will, dated 12.03.1984 in favour of Kunjamur Krishna Swamy Iyengar, the uncle of the petitioner, who executed a Will, dated 08.05.1995, in favour of the petitioner bequeathing the said property. The petitioner having approached the second respondent obtained patta No.218, vide proceedings, dated 09.09.1998. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 3 and 4 preferred an Appeal before the ﬁrst respondent presumably under Section 5(5) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (the Act, for brevity) which was allowed and the same was remanded to the second respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appeal ﬁled purportedly under Section 5-B of the Act by respondents after lapse of eight years against the grant of PPB by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer (MRO) is barred by limitation and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. Opposing the writ petition, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General-A) submits that as found by the ﬁrst respondent, the name of the grandfather of the petitioner was interpolated in the revenue records of Panakam Village and that the MRO did not issue notice to respondents 3 and 4 nor conducted enquiry as contemplated under the Act. He also points that the petitioner has an eﬀective alternative remedy of ﬁling a revision petition before the Joint Collector, Chittoor. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the ﬁrst respondent considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner before him including the ground that the Appeal under Section 5-B of the Act is barred. The ﬁrst respondent also found that no notice was issued to respondents 3 and 4 before issuing PPB to the petitioner and therefore, he directed the second respondent to conduct fresh enquiry after holding Grama Sabha by giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the ﬁrst respondent in remanding the matter to the second respondent, it is still open to him to prefer revision petition under Section 9 of the Act, in which event, the Joint Collector, Chittoor, shall consider the revision independently without reference to this order. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) 13.02.2007. pln