JUDGMENT : The petitioner is a choultry registered under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (for short 'the Act'). It was endowed an extent of Ac.23.24 cents of land in T.S.No.36, M.N. Ward of Kothapeta, Vizianagaram District, way back in the year 1884. However, pattadar pass books in respect of the said lands were issued in favour of respondents 2 to 7, on the basis of a purchase made by them, in the year 2000, from the 8th respondent. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vizianagaram, submitted letters/reports before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 1st respondent herein, stating that the petitioner had title over the land, and that the same was determined by the Court of District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in O.S.No.6 of 1951. Acting on the same, the 1st respondent cancelled the pattadar pass books issued in favour of respondents 2 to 7, through proceedings dated 22-04-2003. Respondents 2 to 7 filed W.P.No.7722 of 2003, challenging the proceedings dated 22-04-2003. The writ petition was allowed on 25-10-2004, on the sole ground that the petitioners therein were not put on notice, and were not given opportunity. The mater was remanded to the 1strespondent for fresh consideration and disposal. After remand, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 03-02-2007, upholding the issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of respondents 2 to 7. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent travelled beyond the scope of his powers and in the process, he had even unsettled the findings recorded by the Civil Court, in O.S.No.6 of 1951. He contends that, when, according to the 1st respondent himself, the boundaries of the land are correctly mentioned in the scheme, framed by the Civil Court, there was no basis for him to take a different view, on the sole ground that the survey number was not mentioned. Learned counsel further submits that the scheme framed by the Civil Court cannot be meddled with, by anyone, and any aggrieved party has to approach the very Court, that framed it, and none else. Learned counsel further submits that the scheme framed by the Civil Court cannot be meddled with, by anyone, and any aggrieved party has to approach the very Court, that framed it, and none else. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri A.V. Seshasai, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 7, on the other hand, submit that the petitioner assailed the issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of the respondents 2 to 7, and it has to abide by the conclusions arrived at by the 1st respondent. They contend that the 1st respondent was satisfied with the issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of respondents 2 to 7, is valid, and that it is only in the course of furnishing reasons, that certain observations were made. They submit that the matter has to be viewed only from the perspective of the disinclination on the part of the 1st respondent, to interfere with the pattadar pass books, issued in favour of respondents 2 to 7, and not beyond that. The petitioner-choultry was endowed with immovable properties of quite a considerable extent and value. A great philanthropist and a noble Woman, Rani Kakarlapudi Neelayamma of Dakamarri Village, constructed choultry in Vizianagaram town, during her life time. She executed three Wills, dated 31-03-1884, 04-04-1894 and 04-05-1894, bequeathing three different items of property for establishment, upkeep and maintenance of choultries at 1) Dakamarri Village, for the purpose of feeding the travellers, 2) Vizianagaram town, and 3) Banaras. Vast extents of properties were endowed for the three choultries, so that their income can be utilized for the maintenance thereof. She made her intentions clear, that after her death, the institutions must be taken over by the Government, together with the endowed properties. The interim arrangement, till the Government takes over the administration of the institution, was entrusted to Maha Rani Alakarajeswari, of Vizianagaram. The persons from identified families, including that of the 8th respondent, were named as permanent Managers. The Government did not take steps to assume the administration and management of the choultries, for quite some time. It was only during the course of litigation between the family of the 8th respondent and Maha Rani, in a Civil Court, that the Government realized and recognised its obligation. The Government did not take steps to assume the administration and management of the choultries, for quite some time. It was only during the course of litigation between the family of the 8th respondent and Maha Rani, in a Civil Court, that the Government realized and recognised its obligation. That, in turn, gave rise to filing of O.S.No.6 of 1951 by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, in the Court of District Judge, Visakhapatnam, with a prayer to frame a scheme, under Section 92 of C.P.C., for administration of the three institutions. Through its judgment dated 05-10-1953, the District Court framed a scheme. The properties in schedules 'A', 'B' and 'C' were earmarked for the administration of the three institutions, as provided for under the respective Wills. The mode of administration was also indicated. Schedule 'C' comprised of Ac.23.62 cents of Vizianagaram Village and Taluk, with the following boundaries: East : Nallacheruvu West : Lands of Nanchari Purushottam Venkayyamma and Koyyanna Jogulu South : Lands of Namala Suryanarayana North : China Puvvala Thota and gedda This was entered in the registers of the Endowments Department, as petitioner-choultry, at item No.8 in the list of properties. The property was earmarked for the Yeti Chatram, at Banaras, i.e. Varanasi in Utter Pradesh. The 8th respondent executed as many as six sale deeds, in the year 2000, in favour of respondents 2 to 7, transferring the entire extent of land in T.S.No.36. Based upon these sale deeds, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of respondents 2 to 7. Thisevoked public protest, as well as representation by the authorities of the Endowments Department, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 1st respondent. Through an order dated 22-04-2003, the 1st respondent cancelled the pattadar pass books issued to respondents 2 to 7. In W.P.No.7722 of 2003 filed by them, the order dated 22-04-2003 was set aside by this Court, on the ground that they were not put on notice. The matter was remanded to the 1st respondent. A totally different view was taken to the impugned proceedings. For all practical purposes, the 1st respondent was exercising powers under sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act, against the issuance of pattadar pass books to respondents 2 to 7. The said provision does not vest suo motu powers in the 1st respondent. An appeal has to be preferred by an aggrieved party. For all practical purposes, the 1st respondent was exercising powers under sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act, against the issuance of pattadar pass books to respondents 2 to 7. The said provision does not vest suo motu powers in the 1st respondent. An appeal has to be preferred by an aggrieved party. That question becomes relevant at this stage. The reason is that, respondents 2 to 7 did not raise any objection, as to the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to take up the matter, at least after the matter was remanded to him, by this Court. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the proceedings against the issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of respondents 2 to 7 were validly and legally instituted before the 1st respondent, by the aggrieved parties, irrespective of its form and method. The enquiry to be undertaken by the Recording Authority i.e., the Mandal Revenue Officer, in the context of issuance of pattadar pass books, has its own limitations. If the ownership over the land is claimed on the basis of inheritance, verification of records maintained by the revenue department would serve the purpose. On the other hand, if the request for issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds is made, on the basis of purchase, it has to be verified as to whether the vendor had the title to do so. Here again, the verification is limited to the scrutiny of the existing entries in the concerned revenue and other relevant records. The authority has to maintain a decent balance between, satisfying himself, as to valid legal basis, on the one hand, and avoiding adjudication of disputed questions, on the other hand. Section 8 of the Act itself mandates that disputed questions of title, must be decided by Civil Courts. The powers of an appellate or revisional authority are almost similar to that of recording authority, except that, if, on verification of the record, they come to a different conclusion, necessary orders can be passed, cancelling or modifying the orders passed by the recording authority. Neither of them can arrogate to themselves, the powers of a Civil Court, while hearing an appeal or revision, against the orders of the recording authority. Neither of them can arrogate to themselves, the powers of a Civil Court, while hearing an appeal or revision, against the orders of the recording authority. It was urged, on behalf of the petitioner, before the 1st respondent, that for the past more than 1 1/2 centuries the land was held by the petitioner, for the benefit of the choultries, and that it is a subject-matter of a scheme suit. If, in fact, the land formed part of the scheme suit, none, including the Government, has any right to touch it, except by securing permission from the concerned Court, through properly constituted proceedings. Even, prima facie material as to the inclusion of such land in the scheme, contained in a decree, would be sufficient, for the authorities under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, to require the parties to resolve their disputes, or to establish their rights by approaching the Civil Court. The necessary corollary would be that they desist from expressing any view, on such issues. In the instant case, the specific attention of the 1st respondent was drawn to the decree in O.S.No.6 of 1951 as well as the entries in the records maintained under the Act. As regards the first objection, the 1st respondent observed that, 'C' schedule of the decree in O.S.No.6 of 1951 was described, with reference to boundaries, and that survey number was not mentioned. About the second objection, he found that the register maintained by the Endowments Department did mention the survey number for the land, but the same is not binding upon him. On either count, the view taken by the 1st respondent is untenable. On the basis of such observations, he recorded a finding, which is totally outside the scope of his jurisdiction. He observed, "So, it is very clear that Sri Rudrabhatla Rama Sastry is the owner of the land in T.S.No.36 measuring Ac.23.24 cents as per the Revenue record prior to the preparation of Fair Adangal. Neelayyamma is not concerned with the said land. As a owner of the land Sri Rudrabhatla Rama Sastry has sold these lands to Sri Botta Bhaskara Rao & 5 others and they were issued Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vizianagaram as per the provisions of the A.P. ROR Act". Neelayyamma is not concerned with the said land. As a owner of the land Sri Rudrabhatla Rama Sastry has sold these lands to Sri Botta Bhaskara Rao & 5 others and they were issued Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vizianagaram as per the provisions of the A.P. ROR Act". Even a Civil Court could not have done so, without disturbing or interpreting the decree in O.S.No.6 of 1951, which has become final, half-a-century ago. Ignoring his limits, the 1st respondent went on commenting about the accrual of the properties to the petitioner-choultry, and certain other aspects. The various findings recorded by him in the impugned order are totally outside his jurisdiction. The impugned order cannot be sustained, either on facts, or in law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders, without taking upon himself, the task of deciding the title of the land. On the other hand, he shall strictly go by the record, in relation to the land, be it, the decree in O.S.No.6 of 1951; the entries in the revenue records, or those maintained by the department. This exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Neither party shall take any steps, vis--vis the land, in the meanwhile. There shall be no order as to costs.