Judgment : 1. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the order in R.Dis.No.E2/1114/2010, dated 17.11.2012 of respondent No.1. 2. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to Ac.1.90 cents of land in Survey No.264/1 of Kothapalli Village, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa District. It is the case of the petitioner that one Basireddy Dasi Reddy had four sons i.e., Basireddy Pedda Venkata Reddy, Basireddy Linga Reddy alias Ganda Reddy, Basireddy Chinna Linga Reddy and Basireddy Chinna Venkata Reddy alias Gullabbi; that Basireddy Pedda Venkata Reddy, the father-in-law of the petitioner, has got the property in Survey Nos.264 and 265 and he has two sons i.e., Basireddy Ramana Reddy, the husband of the petitioner, and Basireddy Subba Reddy, who died without marriage and that the husband of the petitioner died on 09.08.1996 and ever since then, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the properties in Survey Nos.264 and 265 admeasuring Acs.9.17 cents, which belonged to Basireddy Linga Reddy. The petitioner further pleaded that Basireddy Dasi Reddy, grandfather of the petitioner’s husband, purchased the property in Survey No.264/1 on behalf of Basireddy Linga Reddy and pattadar pass book and revenue records stood in the name of Basireddy Dasi Reddy and that after his death, the pattadar pass book and revenue records stood transferred in the name of Basireddy Pedda Venkata Reddy, father-in-law of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that Basireddy Linga Reddy executed registered Will on 07.08.1965 in favour of Basireddy Pedda Venkata Reddy in respect of Acs.1.80 cents in Survey No.264/1 and after the death of the testator and the legatee, the property devolved upon the petitioner’s husband, who died on 09.08.1996, and since then the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioner further pleaded that on her approaching respondent No.3, he has issued pattadar pass book and title deed in her favour on 13.01.2001.According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 has initially filed an application before respondent No.3 for rectification of the entries in the record of rights and later he has filed a revision petition before respondent No.1 purportedly under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). Respondent No.1 entertained the revision petition and passed the impugned order. Respondent No.1 entertained the revision petition and passed the impugned order. Respondent Nos.5 to 22, who claim to have purchased the house plots from respondent No.4 got themselves impleaded in the revision petition. The notices issued by this Court were served on all the respondents except respondent No.22 and respondent Nos.5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19 and 20 have entered appearance through Sri Ch. C.Krishna Reddy. Other respondents have not entered their appearance. 3. The notice sent to respondent No.22 was returned with the endorsement “addressee deceased. Hence, returned”. In the view this Court is proposing to take, it may be unnecessary to order further steps to be taken for bringing the legal representatives of respondent No.22 on record. 4. The case of respondent No.4 before respondent No.2 is that one Mopuri Yella Reddy is the owner of Acs.1.69 cents of land in Survey No.264/1 and the said Yella Reddy has sold the property to Chilkapati Khasimpeeran Sab, who in turn, sold the property to one Sarvugari Venkata Subba Reddy. Sarvugari Venkata Subba Reddy sold the property to Gaddam Seshi Reddy, who in turn has sold the property to respondent No.4. After calling for report from respondent No.3, respondent No.1 has partly allowed the revision petition filed by respondent No.4. Respondent No.1 held that a title dispute arises between the parties and therefore, he is not competent to settle the same. Having so held, respondent No.1 has however, set aside the pattadar pass book and title deed issued to the petitioner on the ground that no recorded evidence was produced by the petitioner before respondent No.3.Sri B. Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the approach of respondent No.1 is wholly illegal and improper; that having held that there is a serious title dispute and relegated the parties to the civil suit for adjudication of such dispute, respondent No.1 ought not to have set aside the pattadar pass book issued to the petitioner. He further submitted that pattadar pass book and title deed having been issued in the year 2001, respondent No.4 has not challenged the same by preferring an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. That respondent No.1 ought not to have entertained the revision petition more than eight years after issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the petitioner. 5. That respondent No.1 ought not to have entertained the revision petition more than eight years after issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the petitioner. 5. Sri Ch.C. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19 and 20, while opposing the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.1 has rightly declined to decide the title dispute but he has set aside the pattadar pass book and title deed issued to the petitioner on the ground that she failed to prima facie establish her right over the property in question. He has further submitted that respondent No.4 has established his right to Ac.1.80 cents through their predecessors in title. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The provisions of the Act lay down procedure for making entries and amendment of such entries in the record of rights. After making of entries in the record of rights by following the procedure under Section 3 of the Act, by the recording authority, if any person acquires right over any agricultural land through succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a Court or otherwise and right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land and any person acquiring any right as occupant of a land by any other method is entitled to approach the recording authority intimating acquisition of such right. Thereupon, the recording authority shall amend/update record of rights by following the procedure under Section 5(3) of the Act and Rules 4 to 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989. If any person aggrieved by such amendment/updating of the record of rights, he is entitled to question the same by filing an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. The person aggrieved by an order passed in appeal has a remedy of revision under Section 9 of the Act. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that in respect of which there does not appear to be any dispute that entries were earlier made in the name of Basireddy Dasi Reddy and even pattadar pass book and title deed were also issued in respect of Ac.3.80 cents in Survey No.264/1 on 25.03.1972. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that in respect of which there does not appear to be any dispute that entries were earlier made in the name of Basireddy Dasi Reddy and even pattadar pass book and title deed were also issued in respect of Ac.3.80 cents in Survey No.264/1 on 25.03.1972. It appears that at no point of time either respondent No.4 or his purported predecessors in title have approached the recording authority for amendment of the entries in the record of rights or cancellation of pattadar pass book and title deed standing in the name of Basireddy Dasi Reddy. There is a serious dispute as to the date on which the pattadar pass book and title deed were issued in favour of the petitioner. In the written argument filed before respondent No.1, the petitioner specifically stated that the pattadar pass book and title deed were issued in her favour on 13.10.2001. No explanation whatsoever was offered by respondent No.4 for not filing an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act for cancellation of the entries, pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour of the petitioner. On the contrary, the entries in the record of rights and pattadar pass book and title deed were allowed to be in existence till 2009 when for the first time, respondent No.4 has approached respondent No.1 by availing the remedy of a revision without filing an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. Respondent No.4 has failed to explain as to why he has straight away approached respondent No.1 by way of a revision when a remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act is available to him. 7. Ordinarily, when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the party is expected to follow the said procedure strictly and scrupulously. Instead of filing of an appeal before respondent No.2, respondent No.4 has filed the revision before respondent No.1. This procedure itself in my opinion is unusual and contrary to the statutory scheme. Be that as it may, respondent No.1 has rightly taken the view that having regard to the nature of the dispute raised by the parties, as it involves dispute relating to title, he is not competent to decide the same and accordingly he opined that the parties have to get the dispute settled through competent court. Be that as it may, respondent No.1 has rightly taken the view that having regard to the nature of the dispute raised by the parties, as it involves dispute relating to title, he is not competent to decide the same and accordingly he opined that the parties have to get the dispute settled through competent court. Instead of dismissing the revision petition based on the said finding, respondent No.1 proceeded further and set aside the pattadar pass book and title deed issued to the petitioner on the purported ground that she has not produced “the recorded evidence”. In my opinion, respondent No.1 has committed a serious jurisdictional error in interfering with issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the petitioner, having opined that the dispute between the parties involves a title dispute and that he is not competent to resolve the same. Respondent No.1, who admitted his inability to decide the title dispute, has no jurisdiction to set aside the pattadar pass book and title deed on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence. If respondent No.1 cannot decide the title dispute equally he has no competence to further probe into the question as to whether the petitioner has produced evidence regarding her title. Moreover, respondent No.1 failed to refer to the elaborate written arguments filed by the petitioner tracing her title to the property in question. Respondent No.1 has merely recorded the contents of the report of respondent No.3 and appeared to have got swayed away his opinion. 8. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that respondent No.1 has committed grave impropriety and serious jurisdictional error in interfering with the pattadar pass book and title deed, stated to have been issued to the petitioner as far back as the year 2001, having relegated the parties to the civil court. Under Section 8(2) of the Act, a person aggrieved by the entries in the record of rights is entitled to file a civil suit and under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. If he succeeds in the suit, he is entitled to amendment of the entries in the record of rights in accordance with the decree obtained by him in the suit. If he succeeds in the suit, he is entitled to amendment of the entries in the record of rights in accordance with the decree obtained by him in the suit. In view of the availability of this remedy, respondent No.4 and his successors in interest are entitled to approach the competent civil court for declaration of their right and seek amendment of the entries in the record of rights in the event of their success in the suit. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside to the extent of respondent No.1 cancelling the pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour of the petitioner. 9. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. 10. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order dated 09.01.2013 in W.P.M.P.No.932 of 2013 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.932 of 2013 and W.V.M.P.No.720 of 2013 are disposed of as infructuous.