JUDGMENT : ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J. 1. The Writ Petition, namely, W.P.No.3387 of 2021 filed by respondent No.5 in W.A.No.326 of 2020, has been directed to be listed along with W.A.No.326 of 2020 and the same is accordingly listed. The Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are, accordingly, taken up for consideration together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. W.A.No.326 of 2020 is presented against the order dated 24.03.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.8434 of 2017, whereby the learned single Judge refused to interfere with the order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the appellate authority – Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, in ROR Appeal No.10945 /2016. It is further provided that, as 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 and that, therefore, to vindicate their title, the parties shall necessarily resort to a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. 3. The appeal was preferred by respondent No.5 under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) to set aside the order dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam and to direct the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam, to conduct an enquiry afresh by giving him opportunity and thereafter to reflect his name in the web-page as pattadar and enjoyer in the subject land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.28 cents in S.No.40/2 part of Chepaluppada village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 4. By the order dated 25.01.2016, the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer, Chepaluppada were directed to reflect the name of the writ appellant, namely Pukkala Sreenu, as an enjoyer in the web-page for the subject property. 5. The appellate authority – Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, set aside the order dated 25.01.2016 and remanded the case to the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, to conduct de novo enquiry by giving sufficient opportunity to both the parties for submitting their respective claims, along with documentary proof regarding their right, title, possession and enjoyment over the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in S.No.40/2 of Chepaluppada village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. It was also directed that the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, shall keep in abeyance the name of the writ appellant from the 1-B register and web-page for the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.28 cents covered by S.No.40/2A2 of Chepaluppada village, pending disposal of the enquiry. 6. It appears from a perusal of paragraph 8 of the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition, registered as W.P.No.8434 of 2017, that respondent No.5 had made a representation before the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, for mutation of his name in the revenue records and that without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice to the writ appellant/writ petitioner, the Tahsildar had incorporated the name of respondent No.5 in the revenue records as pattadar with reference to the land admeasuring Ac.0.28 cents in S.No.40/2A2 and aggrieved by the same, he had preferred appeal before the Revenue l Officer, by order dated 13.10.2015, after noticing that no notice was issued to the writ appellant/Divisional Officer with regard to the correction of entries in the revenue records and the Revenue Divisionawrit petitioner, remanded the matter to the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, by setting aside the earlier entries and consequential actions and directing to conduct fresh enquiry. 7. It was on the basis of the aforesaid order dated 13.10.2015, order dated 25.01.2016 came to be passed by the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal. The order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, is not on record, but from a perusal of the order dated 25.01.2016, it appears that the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, was directed to conduct a detail enquiry into the ownership and title over the land admeasuring Ac.0.28 cents in S.No.40/2A2 of Chepaluppada village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as per the provisions laid down in the Act and to issue Pattadar Pass Book/Title Deed to the person who is entitled to it. It is also seen that Pattadar Pass Book/Title Deed and title in favour of Sri Vasupalli Yerayya, S/o. Gurayya (late) was ordered to be suspended and the Tahsildar was directed to enquire into the claim of the appellant with reference to the recorded evidence and issue Pattadar Pass Book/Title Deed in favour of the appellant, if he is entitled as per the provisions of the Act. 8. 8. Sri Vasupalli Yerayya, as noted in the order dated 25.01.2016, is the father of Sri Vasupalli Yellayya, from whom respondent No.5 and three others had purchased the land on 10.11.1998 under a registered sale deed, bearing document No.2337 of 1998. 9. The case presented by the writ appellant, in short, is that S.No.40/2 situated at Chepaluppada village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, has a total extent of Ac.0.60 cents, which is a private zeroithi land and original pattadar was Maddula Rama Murthy. The said Maddula Rama Murthy had sold an extent of Ac.0.28 cents in favour of late Pukkala Nesthalu, who is the grandfather of the writ appellant, through registered sale deed No.523/1959. Maddula Rama Murthy had sold the balance land admeasuring Ac.0.32 cents in favour of Vasupalli Yerrayya. It is the case of the writ appellant that after purchase was made by his grandfather, S.No.40/2 was sub-divided as S.No.40/2A2. Further case presented is Ac.0.30 cents out of the Ac.0.32 cents was acquired by the Government under Social Welfare acquisition for housing purpose in the year 1983 and compensation was paid to Vasupalli Yerrayya and that balance 2 cents of land was also acquired for laying of the road and thus, Vasupalli Yerrayya or his successors had no land left in S.No.40/2 of Chepaluppada village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal. It is further stated that Vasupalli Yerrayya had sold Ac.0.28 cents in favour of respondent No.5, showing the land which belongs to the writ appellant. 10. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5, it is stated that averments made that writ petitioner’s/writ appellant’s grandfather had purchased land to the extent of Ac.0.28 cents and that the S.No.40/2 was sub-divided as S.No.40/2A2 are false. Acquisition of land by the Government was also denied. It is stated that Vasupalli Yerrayya was granted Pattadar Pass Book in the year 1991. It is pleaded that respondent No.5, his sister and brother-in-law had purchased adjacent lands, total extent of which is 3033.2 Sq. Yards and that they constructed a compound wall, erected A.C. shed on the Southwest corner, which was having electricity connection and they are in enjoyment of the said land. 11. A perusal of the order dated 25.01.2016 goes to show that the writ appellant herein was shown as the appellant and Vasupalli Yerrayya and Vasupalli Yellayya were shown as respondents. Yards and that they constructed a compound wall, erected A.C. shed on the Southwest corner, which was having electricity connection and they are in enjoyment of the said land. 11. A perusal of the order dated 25.01.2016 goes to show that the writ appellant herein was shown as the appellant and Vasupalli Yerrayya and Vasupalli Yellayya were shown as respondents. It is evident that in the proceedings before the Tahsildar, respondent No.5 was not a party. The order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the appellate authority is not on record, but from the order dated 25.01.2016, it would appear that the aforesaid order dated 13.10.2015 was also passed in the absence of respondent No.5. 12. Similarly, the contention of the writ appellant is also that, without issuing any notice to him and conducting any enquiry, earlier, the name of respondent No.5 was incorporated in the revenue records as Pattadar with reference to the land admeasuring Ac.0.28 cents in Sy.No.40/2A2 of Chepaluppada village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal. 13. Mr. A. Giridhar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the learned single Judge committed error of law in holding that the appeal preferred by respondent No.5 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, was maintainable, overlooking the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District and others, reported in 2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB), wherein it was categorically held that an appeal is not maintainable against issuance of 1-B ROR (e-pass book). It is further submitted that, even otherwise, the appeal filed by respondent No.5 was time-barred. It is also submitted that the appellant has brought on record an award dated 30.03.1982 to demonstrate that land was acquired and these aspects of the matter were not considered by the learned single Judge in their correct perspective. It is further submitted that, even otherwise, the appeal filed by respondent No.5 was time-barred. It is also submitted that the appellant has brought on record an award dated 30.03.1982 to demonstrate that land was acquired and these aspects of the matter were not considered by the learned single Judge in their correct perspective. It is further submitted that the claim made by the appellant is in respect of S.No.40/2A2, while the claim of respondent No.5, if any, is in respect of S.No.40/2 and, therefore, in that view of the matter, direction of the appellate authority – Revenue Divisional Officer, by the order dated 17.02.2017, to keep in abeyance the claim of the writ appellant from the 1-B register and web-page for the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.28 cents covered by S.No.40/2A2, ought to have been interfered with by the learned single Judge. 14. Mr. Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for respondent No.5, as well as the learned Govt. Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4, support the impugned order. 15. The learned single Judge held that the appeal would be maintainable as the same was an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. With regard to the plea taken by the writ appellant that the appeal filed by respondent No.5 was barred by limitation, the learned single Judge held that the Tahsildar had passed the order without issuing any notice to respondent No.5 and when respondent No.5 made an application for issuance of Pattadar Pass Book/Title Deed on 28.03.2016, he came to learn about the order dated 25.01.2016. The copy of the said order dated 25.01.2016 was received on 05.05.2016 and on the representation submitted by the appellant, the Tahsildar made an endorsement dated 01.08.2016 directing him to approach the competent authority and, thereafter, the said copy was received on 10.08.2016. The appeal was filed before the 3rd respondent within a period of two months and, accordingly, learned single Judge held that the appeal cannot be said to be time-barred. 16. The appeal was filed before the 3rd respondent within a period of two months and, accordingly, learned single Judge held that the appeal cannot be said to be time-barred. 16. Section 5(5) of the Act provides that against every order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, 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 60 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. Section 9 of the Act is a revisional power conferred on the Collector, who may either suo motu or on an application made to him, pass such orders as may be considered appropriate. 17. Section 6-A (1) of the Act provides that any owner or pattadar of any land may apply for the issue of a title deed cum pass book to the Tahsildar on the payment of such fee as may be prescribed. Section 6-A (2) provides that on making such application, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall cause an enquiry to be made in such manner as may be prescribed and shall issue a title deed and pass book in accordance with Record of Rights with such particulars and in such form as may be prescribed, provided that no such title deed and pass book shall be issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer unless the Record of Rights have been brought up to date. For the purpose of our deliberations, it is not necessary to refer to other sub-sections of Section 6-A. 18. In the case of Ratnamma (supra), it was held that Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that appeal against the order under Section 6-A of the Act is not maintainable, as issuance of Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed or making entries thereon is always a step consequential to the Record of Rights prepared. 19. Insofar as the award dated 30.03.1982, which is placed on record, it would appear that award was passed in respect of Government dry S.No.40/1A, 40/1B, 40/2A1, 40/4A, 40/5, 40/6A, 51/3A and 52/2A2. Our attention was drawn to S.No.40/2A which was for land admeasuring Ac.0.28 cents. 19. Insofar as the award dated 30.03.1982, which is placed on record, it would appear that award was passed in respect of Government dry S.No.40/1A, 40/1B, 40/2A1, 40/4A, 40/5, 40/6A, 51/3A and 52/2A2. Our attention was drawn to S.No.40/2A which was for land admeasuring Ac.0.28 cents. In the first place, Survey number appears to be different and the land was notified under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the name of Mr. Vasupalli Nallayya. It appears that S.No.40/2A is not the survey number on which the contesting parties herein are at issue. 20. The order dated 25.01.2016 itself indicated that appeal would lie against the said order before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5(5) of the Act within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of the order. 21. It is an admitted position that respondent No.5 was not even a party in the proceedings before the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam. He had submitted a representation to the Tahsildar to make an enquiry afresh, but when the Tahsildar issued an endorsement dated 01.08.2016, directing the appellant and respondent No.5 to approach the competent authority, an appeal was preferred by respondent No.5 within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the order dated 01.08.2016, on 10.08.2016. In that view of the matter, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge. 22. The Tahsildar, in the order dated 25.01.2016, had also left the parties at liberty to file their claims, if any, for getting clear title before the competent authority, if so interested. 23. The appellate authority, in the course of his order dated 17.02.2017, had recorded that the appellant did not file any document to show any right, title and enjoyment of the subject land, except the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector. The 1-B Register filed by the writ appellant was issued on 29.01.2016, which is subsequent to the filing of the appeal by respondent No.5. The 1-B Register filed by the writ appellant was issued on 29.01.2016, which is subsequent to the filing of the appeal by respondent No.5. In this connection, it is also relevant to state that though in the writ petition, the writ appellant was claiming that he is in possession of the land in S.No.40/2A2, the Tahsildar had recorded in his order dated 25.01.2016 that the land admeasuring Ac.0.28 cents in Sy.No.40/2 part of Chepaluppada village is in possession and enjoyment of the writ appellant and, accordingly, had directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector-I, Bheemunipatnam and the Village Revenue Officer, Chepaluppada, to reflect the name of the writ appellant as enjoyer in the web-page, in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.28 cents in S.No.40/2. 24. In view of the above discussion, we concur with the decision of the learned single Judge and, accordingly, we do not find any merit in this Writ Appeal. 25. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.3387 of 2021 is respondent No.5 in W.A.No.326 of 2020. He had preferred appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam and on his appeal, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, had passed the order dated 17.02.2017, which is already noticed while considering W.A.No.326 of 2020 in the earlier part of the judgment. In the appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, he had made the following prayers: “(a) To set aside the order Dt.25-01-2016 passed by the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam vide D.Dis No.397/2015/A; (b) To direct the 1st respondent to conduct enquiry afresh by giving opportunity to the appellant for submission of his case and reflect his name in the web page as pattadar and enjoyer for the subject land measuring an extent of Ac.0-30 cents in S.No.40/2 of Chepaluppada village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District; (c) Pass such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable authority may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 26. In W.P.No.3387 of 2021, challenge is made to the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, and subsequent order dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal. So far as the order dated 25.01.2016 is concerned, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, by his order dated 17.02.2017, had set aside the order dated 25.01.2016. In W.P.No.3387 of 2021, challenge is made to the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, and subsequent order dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal. So far as the order dated 25.01.2016 is concerned, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, by his order dated 17.02.2017, had set aside the order dated 25.01.2016. Therefore, there is no question of setting aside the order dated 25.01.2016 in the Writ Petition, when the said order was already set aside in the appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam. So far as the order dated 13.10.2015 is concerned, the writ petitioner did not assail the same at an earlier point of time and had accepted the said order and had challenged the order dated 25.01.2016 as per the direction contained in the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam. Therefore, there is no merit in this Writ Petition. 27. In the result, both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are dismissed. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case of either of the parties, and the observations made during the course of this judgment are only for the purpose of deciding the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition. 28. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.