G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THE CRP is filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga reddy District, dated 18-4-1998 confirming the Order passed by the Revenue Divisional officer, West Division, Ranga Reddy district, setting aside the order of the mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad mandal, dated 27-3-1992. ( 2 ) THE petitioners herein filed an application before the Mandal Revenue officer on 8-6-1989 stating that they had purchased agricultural lands measuring ac. 92-02 gts. in S. Nos. 114, 115, 116, 119, 120,121 and 122 of Pedda Golconda village, shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from one Mr. Lal Mohan Srivastava, a pattedar for a total consideration of rs. 78,600/- under a private sale agreement on 21-3-1972. Therefore, they filed the application under Section 5-A of A. P. Record of Rights Act read with Rule 22 to regularise the un-Registered Sale Deed. The mandal Revenue Officer by proceedings dated 27-3-1992 passed an Order allowing the application filed by the petitioners. However, Mr. G. Anantha Reddy and others filed an appeal before the Revenue divisional Officer, Chevella challenging the order passed by the Mandal Revenue officer on the ground that the un-registered sale deed produced by the petitioners was forged and bogus document and that after the death of the pattedar, the lands were mutated in the name of his sons Ramesh and Kishore Srivastava and they executed agreement of Sale in favour of the petitioner for an extent of Ac. 65-16 gts. in 1986 and from 1986 to 1992 their names were shown in the possessors column of pahani and therefore, the Mandal Revenue officer ought to have issued a notice to them and hence they filed an appeal for setting aside the Order. The Revenue divisional Officer after hearing the matter found that no notice was issued to the said persons. Accordingly, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Mandal revenue Officer, Shamshabad for fresh enquiry under the provisions of Section 9 of the A. P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books Act, 1971, A. P. Act No. 9 of 1994 (for brief the ROR Act ). Accordingly, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Mandal revenue Officer, Shamshabad for fresh enquiry under the provisions of Section 9 of the A. P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books Act, 1971, A. P. Act No. 9 of 1994 (for brief the ROR Act ). Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners carried the matter in revision before the Joint Collector and the joint Collector by an order dated 18-4-1998 dismissed the revision filed thus confirming the Order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, against which the present revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. K. V. Satyanarayana Rao, submits that the very entertainment of the appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer was incompetent. The appeal was filed on 9-8-1993 and on the date of filing such an appeal, no appeal provision was available under Section 5-B. Section 5-B was introduced on 9-1-1994 with retrospective effect from 31-10-1993. Therefore, the appeal ought not to have been entertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Keshavlal Jethalal Shah vs. Mohanlal Bhagwandas. Alternatively he submits that even assuming that the appeal was maintainable, the appeal was filed belatedly beyond the limitation and no application was filed for condonation of delay. Therefore, the appeal itself ought to have been dismissed as barred by limitation. The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the application as filed by the petitioner itself was misconceived and was not maintainable under law and more over under Section 5 (5), an appeal lies to the revenue Divisional Officer. Section 5-A was introduced with effect from 21-3-1972, but, however, when Section 5--A was introduced with effect from 21-3-1972 appeal remedy was provided against such Orders. Therefore, in such a situation any Order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, an appeal remedy is available under Section 5. Section 5-B was introduced with effect from 31-10-1993 creating a specific provision of appeal against the Orders passed under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A the general provision which was available under section 5 (5) was got deleted and another provision was created under Section 5-B. Therefore, the entertainment of the appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot be said to be illegal and without jurisdiction. He was having the jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal. He was having the jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal. Hence, he submits that the CRP be dismissed. ( 4 ) FOR proper appreciation of the case, it is necessary to extract certain provisions of the A. P. Rights in Land Pattadar Pass Books act, 1971, A. P. Act No. 9 of 1994. Sections 5, 5-A and 5-B are extracted below. Section 5: Amendment and updating of Record of Rights:- (1) On receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4, the mandal Revenue Officer shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence therefor and shall carry out the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination: provided that no order refusing to make amendment in accordance with the intimation shall be passed unless the person making such intimation has been given opportunity of making his representation in that behalf. (2) Where the Mandal Revenue Officer has reason to believe that an acquisition of any right of a description to which Section 4 applies has taken place and of which an intimation has not been made to him under that Section and where he considers that an amendment has to be effected in record of rights, the Mandal revenue Officer shall carry out the amendment in the record of rights. (3) The recording authority shall, before carrying out any amendment in the record of rights under sub-sec. (1) or sub-section (2) issue a notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or affected thereby to show-cause within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out. A copy of the amendment and the notice aforesaid shall also be published in such manner as may be prescribed. The recording authority shall consider every objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry as may be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as he deems fit. (4) Every order passed under this section shall be communicated to the person concerned. The recording authority shall consider every objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry as may be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as he deems fit. (4) Every order passed under this section shall be communicated to the person concerned. (5) Against every order of the recording authority either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, as 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. (6) The Mandal Revenue Officer shall have the power to correct clerical errors, if any, in the Pass Books. Section 5-A: (1)REGULARISATION of certain alienations or other transfers of lands:- notwithstaind anything contained in this Act, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force, where a person is an occupant by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document, the alienee or the transferee may, within such period as may be prescribed, apply to the mandal Revenue Officer for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid. (2) On receipt of such application, the mandal Revenue Officer shall after making such enquiry as may be prescribed require the alienee or the transferee to deposit in the office of the mandal Revenue Officer an amount equal to the registration fees and the stamp duty that would have been payable had the alienation or transfer been effected by a registered document in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 as fixed by the Registering Officer on a reference made to him by the mandal Revenue Officer on the basis of the value of the property arrived at in such manner as may be prescribed: provided that the Mandal Revenue officer shall not require the alienee or the transferee to deposit the amount under this sub-section unless, he is satisfied that the alienation or transfer is not in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. (3) Nothing contained in sub-sec. (1) and sub-section (2) shall be deemed to validate any alienation where such alienation is in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural holdings) Act, 1973, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. (4) The Mandal Revenue Officer on deposit of an amount specified in sub-section (2) shall issue a certificate to the alienee or the transferee declaring that the alienation or transfer is valid from the date of issue of certificate and such certificate shall, notwithstanding anything in the Registration Act, 1908 be evidence of such alienation or transfer as against the alienor or transferor or any person claiming interest under him. (5) The recording authority, shall on the production of the certificate issued under sub-section (2) make any entry in the pass book to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property. (5) The recording authority, shall on the production of the certificate issued under sub-section (2) make any entry in the pass book to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property. "section 5-B: An appeal shall lie against the order passed by the Mandal revenue Officer under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A, to the Revenue divisional Officer within thirty days of the date of communication of the order and the Revenue Divisional officer shall, after due enquiry pass such order on the appeal as he deems fit, and such order shall, subject to revision under Section 9 be final". As can be seen from the aforesaid sections, the Mandal Revenue Officer is entitled to effect any change in the revenue records and on such application having been filed, it is open for him to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate Orders. Under sub-sec. (5) of Section 5, against, any Order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Under section 5-A, a special power has been conferred on the Mandal Revenue Officer to validate the unregistered Sale Deeds of the agricultural lands under certain conditions. After conducting the enquiry he shall pass orders directing the parties to deposit stamp duty etc. , for issuing the certificate revalidating the unregistered Sale Deeds. On such revalidation the competent authority shall effect necessary changes in the revenue records. Against the Order passed under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A, an appeal is provided under Section 5-B. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, admittedly, appeal was filed against the Orders passed by the mandal Revenue Officer on 27-3-1992 and the appeal was allowed on 9-8-1993. Section 5-B came into effect retrospectively from 31-10-1993. But however, aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner also carried the matter in revision before the Joint collector. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the authorities and the authorities should have jurisdiction by virtue of the statutory provision. Even though the appeal was filed by the aggrieved party before the appellate authority, but the appellate authority should have jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Therefore, if the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction, it is a non est Order and it is liable to be set aside as incompetent and without jurisdiction. Even though the appeal was filed by the aggrieved party before the appellate authority, but the appellate authority should have jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Therefore, if the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction, it is a non est Order and it is liable to be set aside as incompetent and without jurisdiction. It is well settled proposition that if the Court or authority has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim, the consent of the parties cannot confer any such jurisdiction. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that if no appeal is provided in an authority under a special enactment, the appeal would be incompetent. He relies on the decision of the Madras High Court reported in t. S. Krishnamoorthi Ayyar vs. Special Deputy collector of Land Acquisition, Kumbakonam wherein the Division Bench held that the decision of the Court referred under section 49, Proviso (2) of the Land acquisition Act on reference made to it by the Collector under that proviso is not an award - It is a decision by the Court specifically constituted under the statutory authority and there is no right of appeal against such a decision. ( 7 ) IN K. J. Shah s case (supra), the landlord filed eviction petition. The trial court dismissed the said petition, against which he filed an appeal, but without any success. Thereafter, no further appeal was provided under Section 29 of the Bombay rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates control Act, 1947. Therefore, a revision petition was filed under Section 115 of Civil procedure Code before the High Court. During the pendency of the CRP an amendment was made to Section 29 empowering the High Court to satisfy about the legality or otherwise of the Order passed by the lower authorities. The High court disposed of the matter under the amended provision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought not to have disposed of the matter under the amended provision and remanded the matter for consideration under Section 115 Civil procedure Code. The High court disposed of the matter under the amended provision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought not to have disposed of the matter under the amended provision and remanded the matter for consideration under Section 115 Civil procedure Code. The Supreme Court observed in para 7 as follows:"counsel for the respondent urged that the extension of the jurisdiction of the High Court by Section 29 (2) of bombay Act 57 of 1947 as amended by gujarat Act 18 of 1965 related not to any right in existence, but to a matter of procedure, and on that account the act is amended applied at the hearing, and in deciding the revision application filed by the respondent the high Court was bound to apply the amended Act. But, when the revision application was entertained under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court assumed to itself a limited jurisdiction conferred by that section, and in the absence of any express provision made in the amending Act, the jurisdiction conferred by that Section could not be extended. The question whether the high Court could in exercise of its jurisdiction set aside, modify or alter the decision of the appellate Court was not a matter of procedure. The Order of the appellate Court, subject to scrutiny by the High Court, within the limited field permitted by Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, was final. In conferring upon the High court a wider jurisdiction for the purpose of determining whether the decision of the appellate Court was according to law, the Legislature did not attempt to legislate in the matter of procedure. The Legislature expressly sought to confer upon the High Court power to reopen questions which till then were to be deemed finally decided". But the facts, in this case are not similar. Section 5-B was introduced creating an appellate provision against the Order passed under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A. But, under sub-section (5) of Section 5 any orders passed by the Mandal Revenue officer are subject to appeal before the revenue Divisional Officer. Right of appeal is a substantive right and it could never be the intention of Legislature that no appeal should be provided against the Order validating the unregistered sale deeds between 21-3-1972 and 31-10-1993 when sections 5-A and 5-B entered the force retrospectively. Right of appeal is a substantive right and it could never be the intention of Legislature that no appeal should be provided against the Order validating the unregistered sale deeds between 21-3-1972 and 31-10-1993 when sections 5-A and 5-B entered the force retrospectively. Otherwise, a person affected cannot be said to be remediless under the Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the said order could be challenged in the writ proceedings. Admittedly, in the instant case, an unregistered document styling it itself to be Sale Deed of 1972 was filed before the authorities in 1989 seeking validation of such document. Whether such an application would lie or not was not considered by the authority, but the Orders were passed validating the said document subject to deposit of stamps etc. Under section 5-B the Orders passed under section 5-A (4) are only appealable. In the instant case, no order has been passed under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A. It is only after compliance of Order under sub-section (2) Orders could be passed under sub-section (4 ). Therefore, the Orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer should only be treated as Orders under section 5-A (2) and not under Sec. 5-A (4 ). Hence, the Orders other than under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A the appeals could be entertained under Section 5 (5) of the Act and in fact the appeal was filed under sub-section (5) of Section 5 only. Further the order was passed without hearing the proper parties and hence an appeal was filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the matter was remanded. It is also to be observed that the petitioners never took steps to get the Sale Deed validated at any time after Section 5-A and in the meanwhile, the original pattedar died and thereafter the land was mutated in the names of his sons Kishore and Ramesh. They executed agreement of sale in favour of the vendees in 1986, they were put in possession and their names were also recorded in the revenue records as occupiers. It is also the case of the son of the deceased pattedar that the so-called 1972 document was a forged document. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Order passed by the authorities remanding the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer is illegal and contrary to law. It is also the case of the son of the deceased pattedar that the so-called 1972 document was a forged document. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Order passed by the authorities remanding the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer is illegal and contrary to law. Under these circumstances, I do not agree with the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the Mandal Revenue Officer shall pass appropriate Orders uninfluenced by any observations made in this Order. It is further directed that in case the document dated 21-3-1972 filed by the petitioner was found to be forged or fabricated, the mandal Revenue Officer shall file criminal complaint against the persons concerned. No costs.