IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14779 of 2004 Between: Astapuram Anjaiah, S/o.Sailu, R/o.Rekurthi Village, Karimnagar Mandal & Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar. 2 The M.R.O., Karimnagar. 3 The S.H.O.,Karimnagar Rural Police Station, Karimnagar. 4 Oddepalli Karuna Devi 5 Oddepalli Samrat Rakesh ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2 : AGP FOR REVENUE (ASSIGNMENTS) Counsel for Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondents 4 and 5: MR V.RAVIKIRAN RAO The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 07-07-2004 passed by respondent No.1. Heard Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, who got impleaded in the writ petition. A perusal of the impugned order shows that on a petition ﬁled by the petitioner, respondent No.1 has concluded that the patta certiﬁcate in respect of Ac.0.20 guntas of land in Survey No.79 of Rekurthi Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District was issued in favour of Astapuram Anjaiah, S/o Durgaiah and not in the name of the petitioner. On that premise, respondent No.1 cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner. He also requested respondent No.2 to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner for cheating the Government oﬃcials apart from initiating disciplinary action against the persons, who are responsible for issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioner. Respondents 4 and 5 claimed to have purchased the above mentioned property from Astapuram Anjaiah, S/o Durgaiah. Under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”), against every order of the recording authority either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer or such authority as may be prescribed, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the said order and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall subject to the provisions of Section 9, be ﬁnal. Under Section 8(2) of the Act, if any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Speciﬁc Relief Act, 1963 and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. Under Section 9 of the Act, the Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any recording authority, Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer or Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer under Sections 3, 5, 5-A or 5-B in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity or correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken or order passed or proceeding made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceeding should be amended, modiﬁed, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly. In the instant case, neither Astapuram Anjaiah, S/o Durgaiah nor respondents 4 and 5 questioned the entries made in favour of the petitioner in the record of rights. Neither of them has ﬁled any appeal or a civil suit as envisaged under Section 8(2) of the Act to assert their title over the property. Interestingly, reference No.2 contained in the impugned order shows that the petitioner had approached respondent No.1 obviously with some grievance and purporting to consider the said objection, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order. In the scheme of the Act, which is broadly discussed above, respondent No.1 is only an appellate authority, who is competent to entertain the appeals ﬁled under Section 5(5) of the Act, and he has no power to direct cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner de hors the appellate power conferred on him under Section 5(5) of the Act. As undisputedly no appeal has been ﬁled before him, he has no jurisdiction to cancel the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner or to direct initiation of prosecution against him. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. This order, however, does not preclude respondents 4 and 5 from availing the remedies available to them in law to assert their title and protect their interests in respect of the land in dispute. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 22nd August, 2008 vrn