JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 21-02-2001 passed by respondent No.1-Joint Collector, whereby he confirmed order dated 16-03-1999 passed by respondent No.2-Revenue Divisional Officer. Heard Sri T. Balaji, learned counsel representing Sri G. Dasaradha Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3, Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for respondent No.4, and perused the record. The dispute pertains to Ac. 0.14 cents of land in Survey No.602/2 of Chinna Chowk Village, Kadapa Mandal and District. On the basis of the entries in the revenue record, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.3 - Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa on 18-09-1997. Feeing aggrieved by the said act of respondent No.3, respondent No.4 approached respondent No.2 by way of a petition. Respondent No.2 entertained the said petition and even without a notice to the petitioner, by his order dated 16-03-1999 set aside the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of the report of respondent No.3, wherein he stated that as per sale deed dated 15-04-1981, and encumbrance certificate produced by respondent No.4, respondent No.4 is the owner of the property. The revision petition filed by the petitioner, against the said order of respondent No.2, before respondent No.1 was dismissed by order dated 21-02-2001. Questioning the said two orders, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended and in my view rightly, that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to pass order dated 16-03-1999. Under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”), respondent No.2 is empowered to entertain an appeal filed within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order passed by respondent No.3 under Section 5(3) of the Act correcting the entries in the revenue record. In N. Bal Reddy and others v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad and others ( 2004 (2) ALD 419 ), this Court, however, interpreted Section 5(5) to the effect that an order granting pattadar passbooks and title deeds is also comprehended by the said provision. In N. Bal Reddy and others v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad and others ( 2004 (2) ALD 419 ), this Court, however, interpreted Section 5(5) to the effect that an order granting pattadar passbooks and title deeds is also comprehended by the said provision. On such an interpretation, if respondent No.2 is held to have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal even against an order issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds, respondent No.4 failed to file an appeal against the said order in the form of an appeal and within the period of limitation. In this context, it is necessary to refer to Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, which reads as under: “21. (1) An appeal against every order of the Mandal Revenue Officer either making an amendment in the Record of Rights or refusing to make such amendment shall lie under sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act, to the Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub-Collector/Assistant Collector or such authority as may be notified by the Commissioner. (2) Every appeal referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be in writing and shall set forth concisely the grounds thereof within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against. (3) Every appeal referred to in sub-rule (2) above, shall bear a Court fee stamp of rupees five only.” Admittedly, neither the so-called petition is in the form of appeal affixed with the required stamp nor was filed in time. No application for condonation of delay was claimed to be filed by respondent No.4 nor respondent No.2 passed any order condoning the delay before entertaining and adjudicating the appeal on merits. Respondent No.2 ought not to have, therefore, entertained the petition of respondent No.4 and treated it as an appeal. If respondent No.4 was aggrieved by the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, he should have filed a statutory appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, within the time limit, or a civil suit under Section 8(2) of the Act before the competent Civil Court. If respondent No.4 was aggrieved by the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, he should have filed a statutory appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, within the time limit, or a civil suit under Section 8(2) of the Act before the competent Civil Court. As he did not take recourse to either of the two remedies, it is beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 to entertain the petition filed by respondent No.4, because he has no power akin to the power vested in respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the order passed by respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction and consequently the order of respondent No.1 upholding the order of respondent No.2 also cannot be sustained. These two orders are, therefore, quashed. Liberty is, however, given to respondent No.4 to approach the Civil Court under Section 8(2) of the Act. In the event, he obtains a decree from the competent Civil Court, he can approach the respondents for correction of entries and cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.