ORDER: - This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings, dated 26.12.2006, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, . Kothavalasa, the 2nd respondent herein. Through the said proceedings, the 2nd respondent directed that the pattadar passbooks and title deeds be issued in favour of the 3rd respondent, in respect of Ac.0.20 cents of land in RS No.6/1 and Acs.12.85 cents in R.S. No.6/2 of Kothavalasa Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 2. The petitioner-Sri Venugopala Swamyvari Temple, was endowed with landed property in various survey numbers of Kothavalasa Village. The 3rd respondent filed WP No.18933 of 2004 before this Court, complaining that the revenue authorities of the district are not considering his representation, made on 7.4.2004, for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, in respect of Acs.l§05 cents of land in R.S. Nos.6/1 and 2 of Kothavalasa Village. He pleaded that his father was granted ryotwari patta under the provisions of the A.P.(A.A.) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Inams Act'), and still he is not being issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The writ petition was disposed of, on 13.10.2004, directing that the representation made by the 3rd respondent is disposed of within three months. 3. When the matter was taken up by the 2nd respondent, in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Vizianagaram, as well• as the petitioner-Temple submitted objections. In fact, they wanted the pattadar passbooks and title deeds be issued in favour of the petitioner-Temple. The 2nd respondent accepted the claim of 3rd respondent and directed issuance of pattadar passbooks. 4. It is pleaded that an extent of Acs.3.00 cents, out of the above said land, was acquired for the purpose establishing a Bus Station, and the compensation for the land was paid to the petitioner-Temple. The petitioner further contends that the scope of enquiry under Section 6-A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the ROR Act') is very limited, and disputed questions of title cannot be adjudicated therein. 5. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit, asserting that the ryotwari patta was granted in favour of his father under the Inams Act. An objection is also raised, as to the maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that an alternative remedy, by way of appeal, is available before the Revision Divisional Officer. 6. 5. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit, asserting that the ryotwari patta was granted in favour of his father under the Inams Act. An objection is also raised, as to the maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that an alternative remedy, by way of appeal, is available before the Revision Divisional Officer. 6. Sri V.T.M Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the 2nd respondent has taken upon himself, the task of adjudicating the title, and the same is not permissible under the ROR,. Act. He contends that the very fact that the petitioner-Temple was paid compensation for Acs.3.00 cents of land, discloses that the claim made by the 3rd respondent is untenable, and in any event, he ought to have approached the authority under Section 87 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act 1987 (for short 'the Endowments Act'). 7. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the 2nd respondent has acted, in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court in WP No.18933 of 2004 and the parties have to work out their remedies, in accordance with law. 8. Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, submits that there existed sufficient material in favour of his client to prove his title and possession over the land and that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. Placing reliance upon a judgment rendered by this Court in K. Papadu v. Golagana Suryanarayana and another, 2006 (1) ALD 318, he contends that the ryotwari patta granted under the Inams Act, constitutes sufficient material to recognize the title of the 3rd respondent. 9. The impugned order is issued by the 2nd respondent, in exercise of power under Section 6-A of the ROR Act. It empowers the 2nd respondent to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of owner, pattadar, mortgagee, or tenant. First proviso to sub-section (1) thereof empowers the issuance of pattadar passbooks to an occupant also. Rule 26 supplements the further procedure. This is not a case, where the pattadar passbook was already issued in favour of the ancestors of the 3rd respondent, and that he claimed entry for succession. He wanted the same to be issued for the first time. Rule 26 supplements the further procedure. This is not a case, where the pattadar passbook was already issued in favour of the ancestors of the 3rd respondent, and that he claimed entry for succession. He wanted the same to be issued for the first time. Had there not been any rival claim, there would not have been any difficulty for acceding to the request of the 3rd respondent. 10. The petitioner, on its own accord, as well as through the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, made a specific claim before the 2nd respondent, that the land is held by the Temple On the facts pleaded was that, out of Acs.15.85 cents of land in R.S. No.6/2 of Kothavalasa, Acs.3.00 cents was acquired for a Bus Depot, and the compensation was paid thereto. Even while accepting this plea, the 2nd respondent proceeded to observe that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments did not place any material before him. Without verifying as to how and why the petitioner kept quiet when Acs.3.00 cents of land in R.S. No.6/2 was acquired by APSRTC, the 2nd respondent directed for issuance of pattadar passbooks by deducting the acquired land. The 2nd respondent forgot the limits of his powers, under Section 6-A of the ROR Act, and had assumed to himself, the power to adjudicate such serious disputes of title. Even in that process, he has glossed over important facts. 11. It hardly needs any mention that, whenever there exists any title dispute between various persons, in respect of a land, the recording authority cannot embark on the adjudication, and he has to leave it to the parties to establish their rights before the concerned forum. In the instant case, the land is claimed by an Institution, registered under the Endowments Act. Section 87 of that Act, provides for adjudication of the disputes of this nature. The impugned order is totally outside the power of the 2nd respondent, under Section 6-A of the ROR Act. As a matter of fact, the 2nd respondent has assumed jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, under Section 387 of the Act. 12. It is strongly urged on behalf of the 3rd respondent that the ryotwari patta granted in favour of his father would constitute adequate material to recognize his title. As a matter of fact, the 2nd respondent has assumed jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, under Section 387 of the Act. 12. It is strongly urged on behalf of the 3rd respondent that the ryotwari patta granted in favour of his father would constitute adequate material to recognize his title. This Court in K. Papadu's case (supra), held that, in the context of declaration of title, the proceedings under the specialized enactments would constitute adequate basis. That, however, would be possible, only when a suit for declaration of title is filed or the proceedings are initiated before an authority, which is vested with the power to declare title. It has already been mentioned that the 2nd respondent is not conferred with the power, to determine the title of the parties. 13. It is no doubt true that a remedy of appeal is provided for under the ROR Act. Once it emerges that the 2nd respondent has assumed to himself the jurisdiction, which is not vested upon him, it would be futile to require the petitioner to avail another departmental remedy. 14. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to the 3rd respondent to work out his remedies under Section 87 of the Endowments Act. 15. There shall be no order as to costs.