Judgment : 1. The issue in the writ petition arises under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. The present writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to and leading up to proceedings No.(B)2301/97, dated 08.01.1998 of the 2nd respondent and as confirmed in proceedings No.D4/7123/98, dated 13.03.2003 and quash the same. 3. The averments in brief are as follows: The subject matter of writ petition relates to an extent of Ac.15.00 out of Ac.31.66 cents in Sy.No.204-2A of Kundurpi village and Mandal of Anantapur District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’). The Writ Petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 6 claim the property through late Dasappa. The admitted case is that Dasappa was the owner and possessor of the subject land. He died leaving behind him (i) Pedda Venkata Ramanappa, (ii) Laxmaiah, (iii) Venkatesulu, (iv) Chinna Venkata Ramanappa and (v) Onnappa. The petitioners herein are legal representatives of Laxmaiah, whereas respondents 4 to 6 are sons of Dasappa. The Writ Petitioners were issued pattadar pass books/title deeds by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kundurpi Mandal, Anantapur District/respondent No.3. The details of pattadar pass books are as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl.No. Name of P.P.B. Holder Pattadar Pass Book No. Extent in Acres 1 2 3 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Krishtappa 43898 3.50 2. Adimurthy 438959 4.50 3. Viswanath 438961 3.50 4. Devaraju 438960 3.50 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These orders in Record of rights or issuance of pattadar pass books were not appealed as provided by Section 5 of the Act. 4. It is borne out by record that after issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of writ petitioners, respondents 4 to 6 filed objection petition before the Tahsildar, Kundurpi Mandal against the issuance of pattadar pass books for the extents stated above. The grievance before Tahsildar was that pattadar pass books were issued to petitioners for more extent than what is actually possessed by them on ground. It appears through the said objection, respondents 4 to 6 requested respondent No.3 to effect necessary changes to the extent column in the pass books already issued to writ petitioners. The grievance before Tahsildar was that pattadar pass books were issued to petitioners for more extent than what is actually possessed by them on ground. It appears through the said objection, respondents 4 to 6 requested respondent No.3 to effect necessary changes to the extent column in the pass books already issued to writ petitioners. From the order of respondent No.2, it is clear that the 3rd respondent with a report has forwarded the objection of respondents 4 to 6 to the 2nd respondent, who in turn has taken up the matter in File No.(B)2301/97, dated 08.01.1998, as if an appeal is presented against pattadar pass books referred to above. It is relevant to refer at this stage that respondents 4 to 6 have not filed appeal against the order updating the record of rights for Sy.No.204-2A of Kundurpi village under Section 5 of the Act. The 2nd respondent by assuming the jurisdiction of appeal against the grant of pattadar pass books ordered notices to writ petitioners. The order of the 2nd respondent dated 08.01.1998 refers to the alleged attempt of respondent No.3 to serve the notices on writ petitioners and the alleged blunt refusal by them. The fact of the matter is that without presentation of appeal against an order updating issuance of pattadar pass books much less without hearing the writ petitioners, the 2nd respondent directed change of extents in the pattadar pass books in line with Rule 26 Sub Rule 6 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short, ‘the Rules’). The writ petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer filed revision before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent through order dated 13.03.2003 has gone into various aspects of matter, but not the real controversy in the matter, confirmed the order of 2nd respondent dated 08.01.1998. Hence, the Writ Petition. 5. Sri Ghanta Ramarao, learned Senior Counsel, contends that the order of the 2nd respondent is ex facie illegal and contrary to the scheme of Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is further contended that under Section 5 of the Act, a person aggrieved by any of the steps taken by the Recording Authority at the time of amendment or updating an entry in record of rights has to file an appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of the order. It is further contended that under Section 5 of the Act, a person aggrieved by any of the steps taken by the Recording Authority at the time of amendment or updating an entry in record of rights has to file an appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of the order. Respondents 4 to 6 were not parties before the primary authority to the petition filed before 3rd respondent. A report was forwarded to RDO/2nd respondent. Such report ought not to have been entertained by the 2nd respondent as appeal. It is further contended that either the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer or the assertions of respondents 4 to 6 which led to a direction for change of extents in the pattadar pass books issued to petitioners is completely behind the back of writ petitioners. There is no record to show that notices have been directed to be served on the writ petitioners and that they have bluntly refused to receive the same. Unless and until the service of notice is effected as prescribed by the Act, the 2nd respondent ought not to have proceeded in the matter and decided the rights ex parte. 6. Similar grievances have been reiterated against the order of the 1st respondent. Having regard to the legal objection on the maintainability of appeal, the other factual submissions of learned Senior Counsel are not taken note of or any opinion is expressed as it would prejudice the rights of parties while disposing of the writ on considering the legal objection. 7. Sri Ram Mohan Chowdary, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 6, on the other hand, submits that there is patent illegality or irregularity in the inclusion of extent in the pattadar pass books issued in favour of writ petitioners. Rule 26(6) of the Rules clearly lays down that actual possession is one of the requirements for grant of pattadar pass book and there is no material to deny presumption of official acts available on the observation of Revenue Divisional Officer that the writ petitioners refused to receive the notice. He further contends that the issue under the Act has been pending since long and there is no illegality or irregularity warranting the interference by this Court. 8. He further contends that the issue under the Act has been pending since long and there is no illegality or irregularity warranting the interference by this Court. 8. The learned Government Pleader by reference to the counter affidavit contends that the change directed to be carried out through order dated 08.01.1998 is in accordance with Rule 26(6) of the Rules. The same is supported by the Field Inspection Report of Mandal Revenue Officer. 9. The facts are not in dispute and the main grievance is against the order of appellate authority in entertaining the appeal and disposing of the same ex parte. Section 5 (5) of the Act, reads as follows: “5. Against every order of the recording authority either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, [an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer or such authority as may be prescribed], within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the said order and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall subject to the provisions of Section 9, be final". 10. A bare reading of the sub-section shows that on the change or updating on record of rights a person aggrieved by the decision of primary authority has to prefer an appeal under Rule 21 of the Rules. Rule.21 reads as follows: “21. (1) An appeal against every order of the [Mandal Revenue Officer] either making an amendment in the Record of Rights or refusing to make such amendment shall lie under subsection (5) of Section 5 of the Act, to the Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub-Collector/Assistant Collector or such authority as may be notified by the Commissioner. (2) Every appeal referred to in sub-rule(1) shall be in writing and shall set forth concisely the grounds thereof within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against. (3) Every appeal referred to in sub-rule (2) above, shall bear a Court Fee stamp of rupees five only”. 11. The above statutory provisions, if are juxtaposed with Section 9 of the Act, would show the illegality committed by the 2nd respondent. Section 9 of the Act reads as follows: “9. (3) Every appeal referred to in sub-rule (2) above, shall bear a Court Fee stamp of rupees five only”. 11. The above statutory provisions, if are juxtaposed with Section 9 of the Act, would show the illegality committed by the 2nd respondent. Section 9 of the Act reads as follows: “9. Revision – The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5-A or 5-B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly: Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation”. 12. In Sannepalli Nageswar Rao and another v. District Collector, Khammam and others 2002(4) ALT 465 (D.B.), a Division Bench of this Court has considered the scope and ambit of Section 5 (5) of the Act read with Rules 21 and 22-A of the Rules. The relevant portion is as follows: “We have carefully perused those provisions. Section 3 of the Act provides for the preparation of record of rights in all lands in every village to which the Act is first applied and updating of record of rights in respect of the villages to which the Act has already been applied. Section 5(5) provides for an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer against the order of recording authority either in making or refusing to make amendment to record of rights. Section 5-B provides for appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer against the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A of the Act. Section 6 deals with the presumption of correctness of entries in record of rights. Section 6-A deals with the issuance of pass book to every owner, pattadar, mortgagee or tenant of land and recording of entries of alienation in it. Section 6 deals with the presumption of correctness of entries in record of rights. Section 6-A deals with the issuance of pass book to every owner, pattadar, mortgagee or tenant of land and recording of entries of alienation in it. Section 8 of the Act provides that no suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government in respect of claim for entry made in any record of rights, but it is open for any person aggrieved to file a suit for declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of Special Relief Act. 9. It is fairly well settled that where a statute prescribes a particular thing to be in a particular manner, it shall be done only in the manner prescribed as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asst. Collector, CE v. N.T. Co., of India Limited ( AIR 1972 SC 2563 ), which was followed in CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala ( (2002) 1 SCC 633 ). A careful perusal of the provisions of the Act would show that a detailed procedure as to the manner in which the appeals are to be filed, including the period of limitation, is prescribed under the Act. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that any appeal filed in violation of the said procedure cannot be entertained. In the instant case, the Revenue Divisional Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction and has acted in violation of the provisions of the Act and therefore the appellants/writ petitioners have rightly approached this Court”. 13. The difference between the jurisdiction conferred on the Collector by way of revision and on the Revenue Divisional Officer by way of appeal is different and distinct. Right to appeal is a substantive right and is a creature of statute. Therefore, the jurisdiction of appeal has to be exercised before such authority and in such manner the statute has provided for. It is one thing to note that a clerical error is corrected by the recording authority but another to forward report to appellate authority and the same is treated as appeal and disposed of by RDO. For RDO to entertain a case, there should be a properly presented appeal by aggrieved party. 14. It is one thing to note that a clerical error is corrected by the recording authority but another to forward report to appellate authority and the same is treated as appeal and disposed of by RDO. For RDO to entertain a case, there should be a properly presented appeal by aggrieved party. 14. As regards the Revenue Divisional Officer, with the presentation of an appeal he gets jurisdiction to correct an entry made either on amendment or updating in record of rights. There is no procedure to receive objection petition by the Mandal Revenue Officer after he has issued pattadar passbooks/title deeds. Further, such communication cannot be treated as an appeal by the RDO. But, what is required to be noted is that if an appeal as directed by the Act is taken up and pursued by a party, the same is subjected to rigors of appeal procedure in filing, by aggrieved party etc. In the present case, on a concluded report of Mandal Revenue Officer an appeal is entertained and notices were issued to writ petitioners. The manner of entertaining appeal to decide the grievance between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petitioners have suffered prejudice and the ultimate orders suffer from patent illegality. 15. There is yet another reason to interfere with the order of the 2nd respondent. Notices have been directed to be served on writ petitioners. The statement of Mandal Revenue Officer is referred to conclude that the petitioners bluntly refused to receive notices. The said report was communicated by the MRO through the letter dated 9.11.1997. The order was passed on 08.01.1998. In between 19.11.1997 and 08.01.1998, there is nothing on record to show that the 2nd respondent tried to comply with the requirement of service of notice either by RPAD or by affixing the notice at subject land. If the appellate authority observes any mistake in updating record of rights, without concluding the rights of parties finally, it ought to have remitted the matter to primary authority for a decision. In the instant case, if the MRO/3rd respondent is directed to change column dealing with extent, this amounts to illegal exercise of authority. 16. For the above two reasons, the orders are set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Setting aside of the orders is not going to resolve the grievance between the parties. In the instant case, if the MRO/3rd respondent is directed to change column dealing with extent, this amounts to illegal exercise of authority. 16. For the above two reasons, the orders are set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Setting aside of the orders is not going to resolve the grievance between the parties. Instead of taking the letter of Mandal Revenue Officer as appeal, it is clarified that the objection petition filed by respondents 4 to 6 before MRO shall be treated as an appeal presented for consideration and appropriate orders be passed. The matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent, he shall hear and dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If, for any reason, the notices sent by the 2nd respondent are either avoided or not received by the writ petitioners by properly recording the reasons, steps can be taken to complete the enquiry within the time stipulated by this Court.