ORDER : The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders in ROR Appeal No.10945/2016, dated 17.02.2017 passed by the 3rd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and contrary to Section 5 (5) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act, 1971”) and for a consequential direction to set aside the said order. 2. Petitioner’s case succinctly is thus: (a) One Maddula Rama Murthy was owner of Ac.0.60 cents in S.No.40/2 of Chepaluppada village, Bhimunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. He sold Ac.0.28 cents in favour of the petitioner’s grandfather late Pukkala Nesthalu under a registered sale deed No.523/1959 and ever since the petitioner’s family has been in possession of the said extent. While so, M.Rama Murthy sold the remaining extent of Ac.0.32 cents in favour of Vasupalli Yerraiah, the father of 6th respondent. Later, S.No.40/2 was sub divided as 40/2A2. While so, the Government have acquired Ac.0.30 cents for Social Welfare Department in the year 1983 and V.Yerraiah received compensation for that extent. The balance of Ac.0.02 cents of land was also acquired for laying the road. Therefore, the 6th respondent and his father V.Yerraiah were left with no land after above acquisitions. Whereas, the petitioner succeeded Ac.0.28 cents in S.No.40/2A2 from his grandfather. However, the 6th respondent and his father sold petitioner’s Ac.0.28 cents of land to 5th respondent stating as if they were the owners of the said land. The said sale deed is not binding on the petitioner. (b) The further case of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent basing on sale deed obtained by him, made a representation before the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam for mutation of his name in the revenue records. The Tahsildar, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and conducting enquiry, incorporated the name of 5th respondent in the revenue records as pattadar with reference to AC.0.28 cents in S.No.40/2A2. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam and the said authority having found that no notice was issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar, passed an order dated 13.10.2015 and remanded the matter to Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam with a direction to conduct a fresh enquiry. He further ordered to suspend the pattadar pass book and title deed bearing unique No.0301027025000147 issued in favour of Vasupalli Yerraiah, the father of 6th respondent. He further ordered to suspend the pattadar pass book and title deed bearing unique No.0301027025000147 issued in favour of Vasupalli Yerraiah, the father of 6th respondent. (c) On remand, the Tahsildar conducted a detailed enquiry and passed an order dated 25.01.2016, wherein, basing on the report of Mandal Revenue Inspector – 1 (M.R.I), Bheemunipatnam and V.R.O. Chepaluppada, the Tahsildar held that the schedule property measuring Ac.0.28 cents in S.No.40/2 Part is under possession and enjoyment of the writ petitioner and his family and the surrounding area was developed as residential layout and hence, the provisions of the Act, 1971 are not applicable to the schedule land. The Tahsildar in his order directed the M.R.I and V.R.O to reflect the name of writ petitioner as enjoyer in the web land in respect of the schedule property of Ac.0.28 cents in S.No.40/2 Part. He, however, gave liberty to both parties to vindicate their title before a competent civil Court. (d) The further case of writ petitioner is that aggrieved by the above order, the 5th respondent preferred an appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Act, 1971 before the 3rd respondent. The said appeal is not maintainable in view of judgment in Ratnamma Vs. R.D.O, Ananthapur, 2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB) as no appeal is maintainable against the issuance of 1-B ROR (e-pass book). His further case is that the appeal is not maintainable also for the reason that it was time barred. However, the 3rd respondent without considering the above legal and other factual aspects, passed the impugned order in ROR Appeal No.10945/2016, dated 17.02.2017, while setting aside the order dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Tahsildar, remanded the matter to him to conduct a detailed enquiry afresh by giving opportunity to both the parties. He also directed the Tahsildar to keep in abeyance the name of the writ petitioner in respect of 1-B register and web page in an extent of Ac.0.28 cents in S.No.40/2A2 pending disposal of enquiry. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The 3rd respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition on several grounds. 4. The 5th respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition mainly contending thus: (a) The contention of the writ petitioner that an extent of Ac.0.32 cents, which was purchased by vendor of 5th respondent was acquired by the Government and his vendor received compensation from the Social Welfare Department is false and incorrect. 4. The 5th respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition mainly contending thus: (a) The contention of the writ petitioner that an extent of Ac.0.32 cents, which was purchased by vendor of 5th respondent was acquired by the Government and his vendor received compensation from the Social Welfare Department is false and incorrect. The allegation that the extent of Ac.0.28 cents purchased by the writ petitioner’s grandfather was sub divided as S.No.40/2A2 is also false. The contention of the writ petitioner about the acquisition of the land is not borne out by any record and hence, these allegations are staunchly denied. (b) The 5th respondent purchased land from Vasupalli Yerraiah and three others under a registered sale deed dated 10.11.1998 bearing document No.2337 of 1998 and ever since he has been in possession. Similarly, his sister and brother-in-law also purchased adjacent lands. The total extent of the above land is 3033.2 square yards and they constructed a compound wall and erected AC sheet roofed shed on the south-west corner and obtained electricity supply to the shed and thus, they are enjoying the said land. The vendor of the 5th respondent namely Vasupalli Yerraiah had obtained pattadar pass book in the year 1991. Therefore, the question of again granting PPB/TD in favour of writ petitioner by cancelling the name of Vasupalli Yerraiah does not arise. In this background of facts, the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner before the 3rd respondent at the first instance was not maintainable in view of legal position cited by him in the writ petition as the whole law stated by the writ petitioner is against him and in favour of the 5th respondent. In spite of the same, the writ petitioner made representation dated 30.05.2015 stating that the subject property belonged to his grandfather and it devolved on him. The revenue authorities took up the issue and granted pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the petitioner. Though the 5th respondent was a purchaser, he was not made as a party but the deceased Yerraiah was made a party knowing that he was no longer alive. Coming to know of the same, the 5th respondent approached the Tahsildar, who gave an endorsement that he should approach the appellate authority i.e. R.D.O. with regard to grant of PPB/TD. Though the 5th respondent was a purchaser, he was not made as a party but the deceased Yerraiah was made a party knowing that he was no longer alive. Coming to know of the same, the 5th respondent approached the Tahsildar, who gave an endorsement that he should approach the appellate authority i.e. R.D.O. with regard to grant of PPB/TD. Hence, he filed appeal before the R.D.O. and the same was rightly allowed and remanded to Tahsildar for de novo/fresh enquiry. (c) The 5th respondent in his counter reiterated that when PPB/TD were issued in favour of his vendor way back in the year 1991 and when he purchased the said land from his vendor in the year 1998, the writ petitioner after long lapse of 25 years questioned the same for cancellation of the PPB/TD, which is unknown to law. The legal position stated in the writ petition enures to the benefit of the 5th respondent and the only remedy available to him is to file the suit to vindicate his right, if any and even such a right to file the suit is also barred by limitation. Hence, in any view the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Raja Reddy Koneti for 5th respondent. 6. The main plank of argument of petitioner’s counsel is that the father of 6th respondent purchased Ac.0.32 cents from original owner M.Rama Murthy and the said land was acquired by the Government for Social Welfare Department as well as for laying road and, therefore, the family of 6th respondent was left with no land. However, they clandestinely sold the petitioner’s land of Ac.0.28 cents to 5th respondent falsely representing that the said land belonged to them. When the 5th respondent applied for mutation of his name in the revenue records, the Tahsildar without issuing any notice to the petitioner conducted enquiry and incorporated the name of 5th respondent in the revenue records as pattadar. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the R.D.O, Visakhapatnam and having found the Tahsildar passed ex parte order, the RDO remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar for conducting fresh enquiry and directed to suspend PPB/TD issued in favour of Vasupalli Yerraiah. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the R.D.O, Visakhapatnam and having found the Tahsildar passed ex parte order, the RDO remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar for conducting fresh enquiry and directed to suspend PPB/TD issued in favour of Vasupalli Yerraiah. He further argued that on remand, the Tahsildar conducted enquiry and found that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.28 cents of land and thus, directed M.R.I and V.R.O to reflect the name of the petitioner as enjoyer of the schedule land. Aggrieved by the said order, the 5th respondent preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel would strenuously argue that basing on the order of the Tahsildar, the name of the petitioner was entered in 1-B ROR (e-pass book) and therefore, the matter reached the stage of 6-A of Act, 1971 and therefore, an appeal is not maintainable before the 3rd respondent as per the dictum laid down in Ratnamma’s case (supra). He further argued that even assuming that the appeal is maintainable, still it is barred by limitation as an appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Act 1971 has to be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the order. Without considering these aspects, the 3rd respondent erroneously passed the impugned order setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and remanded the matter for de novo enquiry. He thus, prayed to allow the writ petition. 7. (a) In oppugnation, learned counsel for the 5th respondent Sri Raja Reddy Koneti argued that the appeal preferred by 5th respondent before the 3rd respondent was well within the period of limitation as he was not a party before the Tahsildar and within 60 days after receiving the orders, he preferred the appeal before the 3rd respondent and hence, appeal is maintainable and the said aspect was discussed by the 3rd respondent in his order. (b) So far as the contention of the petitioner that the appeal is not maintainable after issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A is concerned, learned counsel argued that it is true that after issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A, such issuance cannot be challenged for the first time in an appeal as no provision for appeal or revision is provided in Section 6-A of Act 1971. However, the 5th respondent has not challenged in appeal about the issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A. Rather he challenged the order of the Tahsildar passed under Section 5 and filed appeal under Section 5 (5) of Act 1971. Therefore, the ratio in Ratnamma’s case (supra) has no application as against 5th respondent. Learned counsel would further argue that on the other hand, the said decision bars the appeal filed by the writ petitioner before the 3rd respondent, as long prior to his filing the appeal, PPB/TD were issued in the name of Vasupalli Yerraiah in the year 1991 and the 5th respondent purchased from him in 1998. Therefore, the matter reached the stage of Section 6-A even in the year 1991. However the appeal was filed by the petitioner before 3rd respondent in the year 2015. (c) Regarding other merits, learned counsel argued that the 5th respondent’s vendor V.Yerraiah was owner of Ac.0.32 cents as he purchased the same from M.Rama Murthy and it is false to contend by the petitioner that the said land was acquired by the Government and thereby Yerraiah and his son i.e. 6th respondent were left with no land. No such record is produced by the petitioner. As owners, they sold the said land to 5th respondent and therefore, he is entitled to PPB/TD in respect of the schedule land. He thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Learned Government Pleader in his arguments supported the order of the 3rd respondent and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. The point for consideration is Whether there are merits in this writ petition to allow? 10. POINT: The impugned order is challenged by the writ petitioner on two main grounds. Firstly on the ground that as against the issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of Act 1971, no appeal is maintainable under Section 5 (5) of Act 1971 in view of the ratio in Ratnamma’s case (supra). 11. (a) A Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of A.P., was engaged with the question of maintainability of appeal against issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of Act 1971, it ultimately held thus: “21. 11. (a) A Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of A.P., was engaged with the question of maintainability of appeal against issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of Act 1971, it ultimately held thus: “21. From a bare reading of Section 5(5) of the Act, it can be held that against every order of recording authority either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal to the RDO, is provided within the time stipulated in the Section. Under the Act, making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make amendment in record of rights is a crucial stage and a substantive decision rendered by the recording authority. Therefore, right of appeal is provided against such decisions. Likewise, from the reading of Section 5(5) of the Act, it cannot be construed that Section 5(5) provides remedy of appeal against orders under Section 6-A of the Act. Issuance of PPB/TD or making entries therein is always a step consequential to the record of rights prepared. Therefore the plain reading of Section 5(5) makes it clear that appeal against order under Section 6-A is not maintainable.” (b) Thus, it is clear that against the order under Section 6-A of issuance of PPB/TD, no appeal is maintainable under Section 5 (5). However, as rightly argued by learned counsel for 5th respondent the facts are otherwise in this case. He did not challenge the proceedings under Section 6-A, but Section 5. It is his case that on remand by the 3rd respondent, the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam vide his proceedings in D.Dis.397/2015/A dated 25.01.2016 held as if the writ petitioner is in possession of Ac.0.28 cents in S.No.40/2 by raising compound wall and directed to reflect his name in the web land. The grievance of the 5th respondent is that in the above proceedings before the Tahsildar, he was not shown as a party, rather his vendor V.Yerraiah and his son i.e. 6th respondent were only arrayed. V.Yerraiah died already and 6th respondent did not evince any interest to contest, obviously, as they already sold the land to 5th respondent. The grievance of the 5th respondent is that in the above proceedings before the Tahsildar, he was not shown as a party, rather his vendor V.Yerraiah and his son i.e. 6th respondent were only arrayed. V.Yerraiah died already and 6th respondent did not evince any interest to contest, obviously, as they already sold the land to 5th respondent. In those circumstances, challenging the order of the Tahsildar, which was passed in terms of Section 5 of Act 1971, the 5th respondent preferred appeal before the 3rd respondent under Section 5 (5) of Act 1971. Since he was not challenging the proceedings under Section 6-A, his appeal was not hit by the Ratnamma’s case (supra). 12. The next contention of the petitioner is that even if the appeal is presumed to be maintainable, still it is barred by limitation as under Section 5 (5), an appeal has to be preferred before the R.D.O within 60 days. This argument also does not hold water. As stated supra, in the proceedings before the Tahsildar, the 5th respondent was not a party and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to know that an order in D.Dis.No.397/2015/A was passed by the Tahsildar on 25.01.2016. He made an application through mee-seva on 28.03.2016 for issuance of PPB/TD and subsequently, he came to know about passing of the order on 25.01.2016. He received the order copy on 05.05.2016 and he submitted a representation to the Tahsildar to take up enquiry afresh, but the Tahsildar issued an endorsement dated 01.08.2016 directing the writ petitioner and 5th respondent to approach competent authority for getting clear title over the land. The 5th respondent received the said order copy on 10.08.2016 and filed appeal before the 3rd respondent within two months. Hence, the appeal cannot be said to be time barred. 13. Coming to the other merits, the main plank of the argument of the petitioner is that the entire Ac.0.32 cents of land purchased by Vasupalli Yerraiah, the father of 6th respondent was acquired by the Government and, therefore, they were left with no property, but they clandestinely sold petitioner’s land of Ac.0.28 cents to 5th respondent representing it as theirs. As can be seen from the impugned order of the 3rd respondent, no documentary proof was produced by the M.R.I along with his report to show that the said land was acquired by the Government. As can be seen from the impugned order of the 3rd respondent, no documentary proof was produced by the M.R.I along with his report to show that the said land was acquired by the Government. Therefore, the acquisition is still a controversial question. Considering all the aforesaid aspects and also that the 5th respondent was not made as a party in the proceedings before the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam, the 3rd respondent, in my considered view, rightly set aside the order dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Tahsildar and remanded the matter for de novo/fresh enquiry into the claim of the both parties. Ergo, I find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. 14. Before parting, it must be mentioned that since complicated question of title is involved in this case, the revenue authorities except making entries in the revenue records after enquiry, cannot decide the title of the parties. Therefore, to vindicate their title, the parties shall necessarily resort to a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.