Judgment : Both the writ petitions are filed by the same individual. Respondents 1 to 3 are common in both the writ petitions. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.25410 of 2011. Respondents 4 and 5 filed an application/appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapally, the 2nd respondent herein, complaining that the pattadar pass book and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioner, in respect of an extent of Acs.2.66½ cents of land in survey No.52/1 of Melupatla Village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District, though they are the actual owners of the property. An application for interim order was also filed. The 2nd respondent passed an order, on 20.12.2010, staying the operation of the pattadar pass books and title deeds, bearing No.K-36816, granted in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the said land. A direction was also issued to the Tahsildar, Punganur, the 3rd respondent herein, to implement the orders and send the connected records. The petitioner challenges the said order. The petitioner submits that the pattadar pass book and title deeds were issued way back 1995, and an appeal, presented at this length of time, was totally untenable. It is also contended that the very entertaining of appeal by the 2nd respondent was untenable in law and there was no basis for him to pass the interim order. Respondents 4 and 5 filed counter-affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner played fraud on the Authorities under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) and obtained the pattadar pass book by misrepresenting the facts. They complain that the petitioner took advantage of similarity of the names of their ancestors, and obtained the pattadar pass book. It is also stated that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property and since they came to know about the fraud played by the petitioner, they preferred an appeal as provided for under law. The petitioner filed W.P.No.25438 of 2011 complaining that the Sub-Registrar, Pulivendula, the 4th respondent herein, is not entertaining the documents for transfer of the property in survey No.52/1. The petitioner filed W.P.No.25438 of 2011 complaining that the Sub-Registrar, Pulivendula, the 4th respondent herein, is not entertaining the documents for transfer of the property in survey No.52/1. He contends that as long as the petitioner continues to be the owner and Section 22-A of the Registration Act is not attracted, the 4th respondent has no option, except to entertain the sale deeds. Separate counter-affidavits are filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, on the one hand, and respondent No.4, on the other hand. Respondents 1 to 3 submit that the appeal preferred by respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.No.25410 of 2011 was entertained and an interim order was passed in their favour. It is also submitted that the matter would be adjudicated in accordance with law. The 4th respondent states that he received a communication as to the pendency of the appeal, and in that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot insist on registration of documents. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.No.25410 of 2011. The petitioner challenges the interim order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent in an appeal preferred by respondents 4 and 5. According to the petitioner, there was absolutely no basis for the 2nd respondent to entertain the appeal, particularly, when it was presented after 15 years from the date on which the pattadar pass books and title deeds, were issued. It is not the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is not the Appellate Authority under the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent lacked the jurisdiction. The contention at the most would be about the condonation of delay. The appeal is still pending before the 2nd respondent. It is not known as to whether respondents 4 and 5 have filed an application for condonation of delay, or whether they have taken the plea that the pattadar pass book and title deeds were obtained by playing fraud. In case fraud is proved, limitation hardly matters. The reason is that the fraud would vitiate everything. It is not known as to whether respondents 4 and 5 have filed an application for condonation of delay, or whether they have taken the plea that the pattadar pass book and title deeds were obtained by playing fraud. In case fraud is proved, limitation hardly matters. The reason is that the fraud would vitiate everything. In Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy v. Joint Collector, Cuddapah ( 2009 (1) ALD 248 ), relied upon by the petitioner, this Court examined the question as to whether an appeal preferred under Section 21 of the Act can be entertained, if it is not followed by an application for condonation of delay and not presented in proper form. An important distinguishing feature between the said judgment and this case, on facts, is that, the appeal preferred challenging the issuance of pattadar pass book and title deeds was allowed, without issuing notice to the affected party and it was found that the appeal was not presented in proper form. The aggrieved party availed the remedy of revision, and being unsuccessful there, he has approached this Court. In the instance case, the appeal is still pending. The petitioner can put forward all his contentions before the appellate authority i.e. the 2nd respondent. The grievance, if at all, can be only vis-à-vis the interim order. On examination of the matter, this Court does not find any serious flaw in the order passed by the 2nd respondent. It does not disturb the existing state of affairs. It was passed with a view to protect the interests of both the parties pending the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sannepalli Nageswar Rao v. District Collector, Khammam ( 2002 (4) ALD 497 (DB)). That was a case, in which the representation was made by an individual to the District Collector feeling aggrieved by the issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of another person and the District Collector, in turn, forwarded the representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer/appellate authority, under the Act. The appeal was taken up suo motu and certain orders were passed therein. Having entertained the appeal suo motu, the appellate authority, Revenue Divisional Officer, passed a series of orders without issuing notice to the affected party. The appeal was taken up suo motu and certain orders were passed therein. Having entertained the appeal suo motu, the appellate authority, Revenue Divisional Officer, passed a series of orders without issuing notice to the affected party. In the writ petition and thereafter in the writ appeal preferred by the affected party, this Court took view that the procedure adopted by the Revenue Divisional Officer was opposed to the provisions of the Act. Such is not the case here. The 2nd respondent entertained the appeal that was presented by the respondents 4 and 5. It is still pending. In case there is any flaw in it, the petitioner can certainly point out the same. It is only when an appeal is entertained by an authority, who is not vested with the power that a writ of prohibition can be entertained. As long as the 2nd respondent is the appellate authority, the act of entertaining an appeal presented by respondents 4 and 5, though a belated one, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Hence, W.P.No.25410 of 2011 is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all his contentions in the pending appeal. The grievance ventilated in W.P.No.25438 of 2011 is that the Sub-Registrar, Punganur, the 4th respondent, is not entertaining the documents pertaining to land in survey No.52/1. It needs to be mentioned that this writ petition is filed almost contemporaneous to W.P.No.25410 of 2011. However, the petitioner did not choose to implead the affected parties, namely respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.No.25410 of 2011. Obviously, he wanted to sell away the property referred to above. There are absolutely no bona fides on the part of the petitioner. This Court disapproves the act of the petitioner in omitting to implead the necessary parties. The W.P.No.25438 of 2011 is dismissed with costs of Rs.3,000/-(three thousand) payable to respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.No.25410 of 2011. It is directed that the 2nd respondent shall proceed with the appeal, only when respondents 4 and 5 represent that the costs were paid. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these writ petitions also stand disposed of.