L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS claim to be the owners of lands in Survey Nos. 34/c, 35/a, 36, 37/a and 38/b admeasuring Acs. 40-20 guntas situated at Kundanpally Village, Keesara mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They have approached the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Keesaragutta, for making necessary entries by way of mutation and for issuance of pattedar pass books in respect of the said lands. Through his proceedings dated 16-7-2000, the M. R. O. had effected mutations in favour of the petitioners in the concerned records and issued pattedar pass books. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 2 to 22 preferred an appeal before the r. D. O. , Hyderabad East-first respondent herein together with an application for grant of interim orders. The first respondent took the appeal on file and passed an interim order dated 30-1-2003 suspending the pattedar passbooks issued by the M. R. O. in favour of the petitioners herein. Petitioners challenge the same. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, pattedar passbooks are issued under Section 6-A of the A. P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass books Act, 1971 (for short "the Act") and no appeal is provided against the same. It is also their case that the appeal under subsection (5) of Section 5 of the Act is maintainable only against the making amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such amendment and not against the action or proceedings granting pattedar passbooks. ( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents 2 to 22, they have narrated the entire background of the case and asserted their rights in respect of the said land. They allege fraud and collusion on the part of the petitioners and assert that the order passed by the M. R. O. cannot be sustained on facts or in law. It is also their case that issuance of pattedar passbooks is only a step consequential to making amendments in the record of rights and as such, an appeal is maintainable under sub-section (5) of section 5 of the Act against the order under appeal. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for revenue and learned counsel for respondents 2 to 22. ( 5 ) THOUGH extensive arguments are addressed on merits of the matter, this court is not inclined to deal with the same. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for revenue and learned counsel for respondents 2 to 22. ( 5 ) THOUGH extensive arguments are addressed on merits of the matter, this court is not inclined to deal with the same. The main issue raised before this court is as regards maintainability of the appeal before the first respondent against the orders granting pattedar passbooks in favour of the petitioners herein. ( 6 ) THE Act provides for making and amendment of entries in record of rights in respect of lands on the strength of claims made by individuals from time to time. The act was amended through Act 1 of 1989, by substituting Section 6-A of it. This Section enables the passbook holder, to have entries of alienation etc. , recorded in the same. It is true that no separate provision is enacted for providing appeal against the orders passed or action taken under Section 6-A of the Act. The omission does not appear to be accidental. Issuance of pattedar passbooks or making entries therein is always a step consequential to the amendments or updating of the record of rights provided for under Section 5 of the Act. There is no question of issuance of pattedar passbooks or amending entries made therein, unless corresponding entries are made in the record of rights. While record of rights are maintained by the concerned revenue authorities, pattedar pass book is a document or instrument left with the person in whose favour it is issued. Both of them can be compared to the Balance Sheet maintained by a bank in respect of an account holder, and the passbook issued to him respectively. The entries in both of them are required to be in consonance with each other. One does not have any existence independent of the other. It has also come on record that the proceedings that were challenged before the first respondent were comprehensive in nature, in that; they dealt with amendment of entries in the record of rights and issuance of pattedar passbooks. It is a single but comprehensive step. Part of it fits into Section 5, and rest of it fits into section 6-A of the Act. It cannot be said that part of the matter, which provides for issuance of pattedar passbooks, is separable and is an independent exercise. It is a single but comprehensive step. Part of it fits into Section 5, and rest of it fits into section 6-A of the Act. It cannot be said that part of the matter, which provides for issuance of pattedar passbooks, is separable and is an independent exercise. ( 7 ) IF we accept the argument of the learned counsel for petitioners that in the absence of any specific provision for appeal, it was not competent for the first respondent to entertain an appeal preferred against the orders or action taken under Section 6-A of the Act, a peculiar situation would emerge. While the amendment of record of rights in respect of a piece of land can constitute the subject matter of an appeal, and in a given case, be reversed, the consequential passbooks, issued under Section 6-A of the act would remain in force for the reason that, it cannot constitute the subject matter of an appeal. Such an inconsistent situation could never have been contemplated by the legislature. Therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted. This court finds that being a step ancillary and consequential to the action taken under Section 5 of the Act, issuance of pattedar pass books under section 6-A of the Act constitutes the subject matter of an appeal provided under subsection (5) of Section 5 of the Act. ( 8 ) NOW remains the question as to whether it was competent for the first respondent to pass interim orders. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the Act does not provide for passing of interim orders in an appeal preferred under section 5 (5) of the Act. It is true that no specific provision is enacted either in the Act or under the Rules empowering the appellate or revisional authorities to pass interim orders in the appeal or revision as the case may be. However, it is a settled principle of law that wherever the statute confers the appellate or revisional powers on an authority, power to grant interim orders to protect the interests of the parties is always treated as ancillary to the exercise of appellate or revisional powers. In Income tax Officer, Cannanore v. K. Mohammed kunhi, it was held as under:"in our opinion the Appellate Tribunal must be held to have the power to grant stay as incidental or ancillary to its appellate jurisdiction. In Income tax Officer, Cannanore v. K. Mohammed kunhi, it was held as under:"in our opinion the Appellate Tribunal must be held to have the power to grant stay as incidental or ancillary to its appellate jurisdiction. This is particularly so when Section 220 (6) deals expressly with a situation, when an appeal is pending before the appellate Assistant Commissioner. But the Act is silent in that behalf. When an appeal is pending before the Appellate tribunal, it could well be said that when section 254 confers appellate jurisdiction, it impliedly grants the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution and that the statutory power carries with it the duty in proper cases to make such orders for staying proceeding as will prevent the appeal if successful from being rendered nugatory. " ( 9 ) THEREFORE, no exception can be taken to the orders passed by the first respondent, suspending the pattedar passbooks that were issued in favour of the petitioners. It is represented that the first respondent had concluded the hearing of the appeal and reserved the matter for judgment. This court does not find any basis to interfere with the interim orders passed by the first respondent. ( 10 ) THE writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be order as to costs.