JUDGMENT : K.J. Sengupta, J. This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.09.2013 by which the reasoned order of the Joint Collector, Kadapa district, has been set aside. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary and relevant for disposal of this appeal, are set out hereunder. 3. The appellants before us being aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar, has preferred appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer and approached the Collector by filing revision impugning the order recording the rights of issuance of pattadar passbook. This took place long time back. However, the appellants before us thought it fit that they would get justice before Collector in the revisional jurisdiction. 4. The revisional authority being the Collector, after hearing all the parties interested held that the parties before him have raised the question of title and he, therefore, observed and recorded that he is not competent to decide the title. After observing so, he decided to cancel the passbooks. Being aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioners approached the learned Single Judge questioning the order of the Collector. The learned Trial Judge, upheld the decision and observations of the Collector that the matter relates to establishing of title and, therefore, it should be decided by a civil court. But his Lordship found that the order in question namely cancellation of the pattadar passbook is unjustified. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge is patently wrong as it should not have set aside that portion of the reasoned order of the Collector canceling pattadar passbook. He argues that when the Collector himself found that there is no basis for issuance of the pattadar passbook, the pattadar passbook should not have been allowed to be operated as there is no record in that connection. 6. After hearing him, we are of the view that the learned Trial Judge has taken correct course of action for, in this matter, one has to decide the title first and after the decision on title is rendered, then recording of such right has to be made under the Act. 6. After hearing him, we are of the view that the learned Trial Judge has taken correct course of action for, in this matter, one has to decide the title first and after the decision on title is rendered, then recording of such right has to be made under the Act. In our considered view, recording the rights under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 is not the conclusive proof of title and ownership but it merely records rights of the persons. But once recording is done followed by the issuance of pattadar passbook, the presumption in favour of holder of the passbook is that he is having right in the land in question. But in this case, the right and title of the parties concerned are seriously disputed and thus the dispute has to be resolved by the civil court, as rightly observed by the Collector concerned as well as upheld by the learned Trial Judge. 7. According to us, when the pattadar passbook has been issued, the same cannot be cancelled automatically unless civil court found that there is no justification for issuance of the same. The presumption of correctness in issuance of pattadar pass book in favour of the person is always in the act and action of Government. But recording is not conclusive as it may be corrected and rectified by the civil court. Unless a competent civil court decides the actual title of the property in favour of any person, consequential measure for issuance or cancellation of pattadar passbook does not arise. Therefore, we uphold the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, as we do not find any illegality in the judgment. 8. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ appeal, all the interim applications shall stand dismissed.