ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Annamraju Venkata Raghavendra @ Raghu, challenging the jurisdiction of Respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer in entertaining Appeal No.A/197/2021 and issuing Notice dated 07.04.2021 for cancellation of title deed of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and consequently set-aside the proceedings in Appeal No.A/197/2021 on the file of the third respondent. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, father of the petitioner inherited land admeasuring an extent of Ac.2-35 cents in Sy.No.96/2 and Ac.2-35 cents in Sy.No.105/2, which is a patta land. The name of petitioner’s father was also reflecting in RSR and mutated in the revenue records in the year 1908 for the above two survey numbers, based on which pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued to petitioner’s father vide Patta No.601. 3. Father of the fifth respondent filed E.P.No.74 of 1996 in O.S.No.28 of 1995 for failure to discharge the decree debt. The schedule property was brought to sale. Later, father of this petitioner, who is the plaintiff/decree holder purchased the same. Similarly, E.P.No.92 of 1994 in O.S.No.21 of 1993 was also filed in which also father of this petitioner, plaintiff/decree holder purchased the schedule land. Thus, schedule property totaling to an extent of Ac.11-00 cents in Sy.Nos.96, 105 and 106 respectively belong to the petitioner’s father. Thus, the petitioner’s father became owner of the land and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the property during his lifetime. 4. All of sudden, in the year 2021, the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 filed an appeal before the third respondent vide Rc.A/197/2021 under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), for cancellation of the title deed of the petitioner which was granted long back, but just because his father purchased some extents in Sy.Nos.96, 105 and 106 respectively. On improper consideration of the application, Respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapuram issued notice to the petitioner dated 07.04.2021 treating the application as an appeal without any authority of law and therefore, the proceedings are challenged before this Court and requested to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. On improper consideration of the application, Respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapuram issued notice to the petitioner dated 07.04.2021 treating the application as an appeal without any authority of law and therefore, the proceedings are challenged before this Court and requested to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. Respondent No.3 – Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapuram filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations, inter alia contending that, Sri Golla Mallikarjuna Vara Prasad filed appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act to call for the records relating to an extent of Ac.4-00 cents in Sy.No.96, 105 and an extent of Ac.7-00 cents in Sy.Nos.96 & 106 and conduct enquiry, and to delete the name of the first respondent’s father for the land in Sy.No.96/2, 105/2 an extent of Ac.4-70 cents. Respondent No.5 stated in his Appeal petition that the suits were decreed in favour of his father on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Markapur and later his father purchased the said lands in the auction conducted by Senior Civil Judge Court, Markapur and was confirmed by the Court vide E.P.No.74 of 1996 in O.S.No.28 of 1995 dated 09.06.1998 in respect of lands situated in Sy.Nos.96 and 105 measuring an extent of Ac.4-00 cents. Similarly other land purchased in auction conducted by Senior Civil Judge Court, Markapur and was confirmed by the Court vide E.P.No.92 of 1994 in O.S.No.21 of 1993 dated 9.07.1997 in respect of lands situated in Sy.Nos.96,106 and 105 measuring an extent of Ac.7-00 cents and the land is in the possession of his father till his demise and later they inherited and divided into two equal shares and obtained pattadar passbooks and enjoying the land. While so, the petitioner is trying to trespass into their lands basing on the fake pattadar passbooks obtained fraudulently by the petitioner. Hence, he filed the appeal under the provisions of the Act, for deletion of bogus entries from the fake pattadar pass books. 6. It is contended that, father of Respondent No.5 purchased the above lands through auction conducted by Senior Civil Judge, Markapur for Rs.71,000/- and Rs.1,01,000/- being the highest bidder, the auction was also confirmed and the land is under enjoyment of the respondents father. After demise of the father of Respondent No.5, two brothers obtained pattadar passbooks, mutated their names in the revenue records and enjoying the land. After demise of the father of Respondent No.5, two brothers obtained pattadar passbooks, mutated their names in the revenue records and enjoying the land. The respondent stated that the writ petitioner is trying to trespass into their lands basing on the fake pattadar passbooks obtained fraudulently by the petitioner. Hence, the appeal was filed under the provisions of the Act for deletion of bogus entries from the fake pattadar passbooks. 7. Since the appeal is preferred under Section 5(5) of the Act, the same was received and registered as R.C.A/197/2021 and issued notice to the petitioner on 07.04.2021 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the third respondent at 11:00 a.m. on 17.04.2021 and produce documents, if any, to decide the appeal filed by Respondent No.5. 8. It is submitted that the petitioner’s father was not in possession and enjoyment of the said extents. It is stated that the name referred in the RSR of 1908 i.e Annamraju Sundararamaiah, pertains to the ancestors of the petitioner but not petitioner’s father. The petitioner’s father was Village Revenue Officer in the Revenue Department and retired in the year 2018 while working at Pamarru Village, Prakasam District. The petitioner was aged 62 years at the time of his death in the year 2020. As such, the name referred to in the RSR does not pertain to the father of the petitioner. The alleged title deed bearing Patta No.601 issued by the Revenue Authorities in faovur of the petitioner’s father is a fake one brought into existence in collusion with revenue authorities. The alleged Title Deedin favour of petitioner’s father was obtained on 22.04.2015 for an extent of Ac.2-35 cents in Sy.No.96/2 and an extent of Ac.2-35 cents in Sy.No.105/2. Basing on the alleged title deed, the petitioner made an application dated 11.10.2019 to the fourth respondent inter alia stating that the entire extent in Sy.Nos.96, 105 and 106 is Ac.57-29 cents and the said land belongs to three persons and after alienation, remained an extent of Ac.4-75 cents and obtained pattadar passbook for the said land. Basing on the alleged title deed, the petitioner made an application dated 11.10.2019 to the fourth respondent inter alia stating that the entire extent in Sy.Nos.96, 105 and 106 is Ac.57-29 cents and the said land belongs to three persons and after alienation, remained an extent of Ac.4-75 cents and obtained pattadar passbook for the said land. Respondent No.5 and his brother raised fencing for the said land inter alia stating that they acquired land in Court sale and when the petitioner attempted to enter into the said land, he was obstructed by Respondent No.5 and his brother and as such, sought to measure the said land and see that his possession would be restored. Pursuant to the same, enquiry was made by Respondent No.4 with the assistance of Village Revenue Officer, Revenue Inspector and Mandal Deputy Surveyor, Yerragondapalem and found that, father of Respondent No.5 was put in possession of Ac.4-00 cents in Sy.No.96/2 and Ac.7-00 cents in Sy.No.105/2 totaling to an extent of Ac.11-00 cents having purchased the same in Court auction and after death of father of Respondent No.5, Respondent No.5 and his brother have been in possession and enjoyment and cultivating the same with absolute rights and there is no scope to get survey and fix boundaries and put him in possession. An endorsement bearing Rc.No.269/2019 dated 29.11.2019 was issued by Respondent No.4 to the petitioner to that effect. It is specifically stated in the said endorsement that the petitioner has not been in possession and enjoyment of any land in Sy.Nos.96/2 and 105/2 of Yerragondapalem and his name was illegally included in the Web land, orders were issued to get his name deleted from the Web land and same was submitted to the third respondent for necessary orders. In the proceedings issued by the Revenue authorities, the names of the persons having title and possession and enjoyment in Sy.Nos.96/2 and 105/2 were clearly stated. It is contended that the petitioner suppressed the above said facts and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. It is further contended that, father of Respondent No.5 filed O.S.No.21 of 1993 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Markapur for recovery of money against one K. Puspa and obtained a decree. It is contended that the petitioner suppressed the above said facts and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. It is further contended that, father of Respondent No.5 filed O.S.No.21 of 1993 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Markapur for recovery of money against one K. Puspa and obtained a decree. Later, father of Respondent No.5 got filed E.P.No.92 of 1994 in O.S.No.21 of 1993 and brought Ac.7-00 in Sy.Nos.96,106 and 105 out of Ac.59-27 cents with defined boundaries and his father was declared as the highest bidder in the Court auction conducted on 19.12.1996. Later, Sale Certificate was issued in his favour and was put in possession. So also, father of Respondent No.5 filed O.S.No.28 of 1995 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Markapur for recovery of money against one G.K. Naidu and obtained a decree. Later, father of Respondent No.5 got filed E.P.No.74 of 1996 in O.S.No.28 of 1995 and brought Ac.4-00 in Sy.Nos.96 and 105 out of Ac.59-27 cents of Yerragondapalem village with defined boundaries and his father was declared as highest bidder in the Court auction held on 16.03.1998. Later, Sale Certificate was issued in his favour and he was put in possession. Later, the judgment debtor in O.S.No.28 of 1995 got filed C.R.P.No.12917 of 2011 to set-aside the exparte decree and the same was dismissed on 27.06.2011. It is further contended that, father of Respondent No.5 died on 21.06.2011. Thereupon, Respondent No.5 and his brother have partitioned the land orally. Separate title deed and pattadar pass books were issued in their favour. Respondent No.5 and his brother made an application for conversion of agricultural land into non-agriculture. The third respondent who is the competent authority issued proceedings in D.Dis.A/211/2018 dated 27.02.2019 and D.Dis.A/212/2018 dated 27.02.2019 and the said proceedings are filed. The purchase of land by father of Respondent No.5 was admitted by the petitioner in Paragraph No.4 of the petitioner’s affidavit. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to purchase by father of Respondent No.5 the above referred property with defined boundaries and obtaining of Title Deed and Pass Book by Respondent No.5 and his brother, subsequent to their father’s death. It is in respect of that land only, the petitioner claimed rights and made an application before the fourth respondent to conduct enquiry and fix boundaries. It is in respect of that land only, the petitioner claimed rights and made an application before the fourth respondent to conduct enquiry and fix boundaries. The Revenue authorities, after conducting enquiry stated that the petitioner is not having any land in Sy.Nos.96 and 105 of Yerragondapalem village. 10. It is further submitted by Respondent No.5 that, petitioner’s father was neither a judgment debtor nor a guarantor in respect of the decree debts contracted by father of Respondent No.5. The property purchased by father of Respondent No.5 in Court auction admittedly pertains to the judgment debtors in the above execution proceedings. It is in respect of that property that was purchased by father of Respondent No.5, Respondent No.5 raised fencing as stated by the petitioner. The persons owning and possessing land in Sy.Nos.96, 105 and 106 was stated by Respondent No.4 in his endorsement and the fourth respondent categorically stated that the petitioner is not having any land in Sy.Nos.96 and 105 and the entries in Web land were made illegally. 11. Finally, it is submitted that Respondent No.5 filed R.C.A/197/2021 to delete the entries in the revenue records that were illegally made or found in name of the petitioner’s father. No reference is made in the appeal for cancellation of title deed of the petitioner. To the knowledge of respondent No.5, the petitioner is not having title to any extent in Sy.Nos.96 and 105 and that the appeal was filed immediately after coming to know about the illegal entries, as such there is no delay and that, based on the principle laid down in Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, 2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB), has no application, since the appeal is not for cancellation of title deed and it is for mutation of the name of Respondent No.5, deleting the name of petitioner’s father with respect to the land in survey numbers referred above and finally requested to dismiss the writ petition. 12. During hearing, Sri Srinivasulu Kurra, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in the absence of any order passed by the Tahsildar, entertaining an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, does not arise. Therefore, Respondent No.3 lacks jurisdiction and this issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram (referred supra). During hearing, Sri Srinivasulu Kurra, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in the absence of any order passed by the Tahsildar, entertaining an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, does not arise. Therefore, Respondent No.3 lacks jurisdiction and this issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram (referred supra). On this sole ground, the petitioner sought to declare the proceedings in Appeal RC/A/197/2021 filed under Section 5(5) of the Act as illegal, arbitrary and the Notice dated 07.04.2021 issued to this petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and consequently requested to set-aside the same. 13. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue supported the action of Respondent No.3 – Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapuram Division in issuing Notice dated 07.04.2021 to the petitioner, treating the application as appeal. 14. Whereas, Sri N. Sriram Murthy, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 contended that, the petitioner only submitted an application for deleting the name of petitioner’s father for the subject property in the revenue records and to mutate the name of Respondent No.5. But, erroneously, Respondent No.3 treated the same as an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act and for the mistake of Respondent No.3, Respondent No.5 cannot be made to suffer and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 15. In view of the specific contention, it is appropriate to advert to the material available on record to find out whether Respondent No.5 filed an appeal or an application before Respondent No.3 for deletion of the name of petitioner’s father and to mutate the name of Respondent No.5. If it is an appeal filed under Section 5(5) of the Act before Respondent No.3, the appeal is not maintainable in the absence of any order passed by the Tahsildar. 16. The copy of Appeal RC/A/197/2021 dated 22.03.2021 pending before Respondent No.3 is placed on record. As seen from the memorandum of Appeal, the alleged application filed by Respondent No.5, it is clear that it is an Appeal in RC.A/197/2021 and even the array of the parties and provision of law, it clearly discloses that it is an appeal filed under Section 5(5) of the Act. As seen from the memorandum of Appeal, the alleged application filed by Respondent No.5, it is clear that it is an Appeal in RC.A/197/2021 and even the array of the parties and provision of law, it clearly discloses that it is an appeal filed under Section 5(5) of the Act. The relief claimed in the appeal is as follows: Therefore, the appellant most humbly prays that the Hon’ble Revenue Divisional Officer may be pleased to: (1) Call for records relating to the S.No.96, 105 an extent of Ac.4-00 cents and S.No.96,105 an extent of Ac.7-00 cents and conduct enquiry. (2) To delete the name of the 1st respondent’s father in S.No.96/2, 105/2 an extent of Ac.4-70 cents. And to grant such other rleiefs which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the appeal.” 17. On reading of entire appeal, at all places, the name of Respondent No.5 is referred as appellant and the name of petitioner herein is referred as Respondent No.1. The nature of application is mentioned as an appeal and raised several grounds. Therefore, it cannot be construed as application for any purpose and strictly it is an appeal filed under Section 5(5) of the Act. Though, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 would contend that petitioner submitted an application before Respondent No.3, but the same is treated as an appeal. This contention is false on the face of record. A bare look at the appeal in R.C/A/197/2021, it is only an appeal for all purposes filed under Section 5(5) of the Act, but not an application. Therefore, the contention is rejected. 18. Even the Notice dated 07.04.2021 in R.C/A/197/2021 was issued calling upon this petitioner to appear before Respondent No.3 at 11:00 a.m. on 17.04.2021 and produce records. This would clearly show that it is an appeal filed under Section 5(5) of the Act. Therefore, in view of second paragraph of the notice, it is only an appeal and not an application. Hence, the contention of Respondent No.5, that application or petition is submitted by Respondent No.5 is turned down, considering the nature of proceedings pending before Respondent No.3 and the Notice dated 07.04.2021 issued by Respondent No.3. 19. One of the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents is that, the petitioner submitted only an application to mutate the name of Respondent No.5, deleting the name of petitioner’s father. 19. One of the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents is that, the petitioner submitted only an application to mutate the name of Respondent No.5, deleting the name of petitioner’s father. This request is nothing but a request made under Section 4(1) of the Act before the recording authority and a procedure is contemplated under Section 5 of the Act read with Rule 19 of the Rules framed under the Act. Thus, instead of filing an application before the Tahsildar, an appeal is filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, obviously for different reasons even without an order passed by the Tahsildar. 20. Section 5(5) of the Act says 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 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. 21. In view of the purport of Section 5(5) of the Act, an appeal lies not only against an order for issue of pattadar passbook or rejection of request for issue of pattadar passbook, but also applicable to any order passed under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act. Hence, the appeal is maintainable only against the order passed by the Tahsildar, under Section 5(5) of the Act. But, here, no order is passed by recording authority i.e. Tahsildar on the intimation received by him under Section 4(1) of the Act, following procedure under Section 5 of the Act. In the absence of any order passed by the Tahsildar, the Appeal is not maintainable directly before the Revenue Divisional Officer – Respondent No.3 herein and entertaining an Appeal by Respondent No.3 without any order passed by the Tahsildar is a grave illegality, in view of the law declared by the Court in Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram (referred supra). Hence, by applying the principle laid down in the judgment referred above, the proceedings pending before Respondent No.3 where Notice dated 07.04.2021 was issued in an Appeal without any order passed by the recording authority i.e. Tahsildar is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, by applying the principle laid down in the judgment referred above, the proceedings pending before Respondent No.3 where Notice dated 07.04.2021 was issued in an Appeal without any order passed by the recording authority i.e. Tahsildar is illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, it is not maintainable and Respondent No.3 ought not to have entertained the Appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act in the absence of any order passed by the Tahsildar. Hence, very entertaining of Appeal is illegal and arbitrary. 22. When the quasi judicial authority entertained an Appeal, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued, since it is only to prohibition from proceeding with the appeal. Writ of Prohibition can be issued by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This view is fortified by the Apex Court in “Thirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. Thallappaka Ananthacharyulu” (referred supra). In the said judgment, the Apex Court held as follows: “On the basis of the authorities it is dear that the Supreme Court and the High Courts have power to issue writs, including a writ of prohibition. A writ of prohibition is normally issued only when the inferior Court or Tribunal (a) proceeds to act without or In excess of jurisdiction, (b) proceeds to act in violation of rules of natural justice, (c) proceeds to act under law which is itself ultra vires or unconstitutional, or (d) proceeds to act in contravention of fundamental rights. The principles, which govern exercise of such power, must be strictly observed. A writ of prohibition must be issued only in rarest of rare cases. Judicial disciplines of the highest order has to be exercised whilst issuing such writs. It must be remembered that the writ jurisdiction is original jurisdiction distinct from appellate jurisdiction. An appeal cannot be allowed to be disguised in the form of a writ.” 23. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in “Thirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. Thallappaka Ananthacharyulu” (referred supra) and in the circumstances stated above, the Court can exercise such power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Prohibition. 24. Hence, moulding the relief, writ of prohibition is issued, prohibiting Respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapuram from proceeding further in Appeal No.A/197/2021 and in pursuance of the Notice dated 07.04.2021. Consequently, Notice dated 07.04.2021 is set-aside, granting liberty to Respondent No.5 to make appropriate application. 25. 24. Hence, moulding the relief, writ of prohibition is issued, prohibiting Respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapuram from proceeding further in Appeal No.A/197/2021 and in pursuance of the Notice dated 07.04.2021. Consequently, Notice dated 07.04.2021 is set-aside, granting liberty to Respondent No.5 to make appropriate application. 25. In the result, writ petition is allowed, declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in entertaining Appeal No.A/197/2021 and issuing Notice dated 07.04.2021 as illegal and arbitrary; while granting writ of prohibition, prohibiting Respondent No.3/Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapuram from proceeding further in Appeal No.A/197/2021 and in pursuance of the Notice dated 07.04.2021. Consequently, Notice dated 07.04.2021 is set-aside, granting liberty to Respondent No.5 to make appropriate application. No costs. 26. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.