ORDER : Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions arise out of same cause of action, these two writ petitions disposed of together with a common order. W.P.No.10799 of 2020: 2. This Writ petition is filed assailing the action of the respondents more particularly the 4th Respondent-Tahsildar, failing to re-enter the name of the Petitioner in the Web-Land Records (Revenue Records) who is the absolute and lawful owner of land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1.50 cents in Survey No.271/1A, of Tiruchanoor Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District notwithstanding the application dated 24.02.2021 made by petitioner and seeking a direction to the 4th respondent to re-enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records with respect to the said land. W.P.No.943 of 2020: 3. This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the 4th respondent herein i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer, vide D.Dis.No.G/867/2018 dated 09.12.2019 in setting aside the order of mutation passed by the 5th respondent-Tahsildar in D.Dis.A/142/2018 and the action of the 2nd respondent in not taking up the appeal and stay petition filed on 27.12.2019 against the orders of the 4th respondent herein dated 09.12.2019 and to set aside the order dated 09.12.2019. 4. Heard Sri N. Aswani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri P. Veera Reddy, senior counsel appearing for Sri T. Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the mother of the petitioner Smt. T. Munemma, wife of late T.K.G. Swamy Naidu filed an application before the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor seeking issuance of Ryotwari Patta under A.P. Inams (Abolition Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 for the lands which she purchased under various sale deeds from one M. Changaraya Reddy and Others between 1961 and 1969. Pursuant to the said application, the Inam Deputy Tahsildar after thorough enquiry and after inspecting all revenue records as well as considering the ground of enjoyment, issued Ryotwari Patta vide orders dated 17.12.1994 holding that the applicant therein has purchased said lands and has been cultivating and enjoyment of said lands by raising paddy and also issued Form-8 dated 17.12.1984. Pursuant to the said application, the Inam Deputy Tahsildar after thorough enquiry and after inspecting all revenue records as well as considering the ground of enjoyment, issued Ryotwari Patta vide orders dated 17.12.1994 holding that the applicant therein has purchased said lands and has been cultivating and enjoyment of said lands by raising paddy and also issued Form-8 dated 17.12.1984. Thereafter said patta was implemented in the revenue records, the name of Smt. T. Munemma was recorded in the settlement of the Fair Adangal of Tiruchanoor village and her name was also mutated in all the revenue records. Further, the Inam Tahsildar also issued No Objection Certificate. 6. The land in an extent of Ac.5.14 cents including the subject land in an extent of Ac.3.73 cents in Sy.No.271/1P of Tiruchooor Village is a land for which Ryotwari Patta was granted in favour of said Munemma, no appeals were filed or pending against the said Ryotwari Patta and also there was no objection for layout of the said land. Thus, since the purchase of the land by the mother of the petitioner, she was in possession and enjoyment of the land without any interference during her life time and thereafter the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. 7. While that being the situation, in the year 2003 part of the said land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of laying 150ft road by the Tirupati Urban Development Authority i.e., an extent of Ac. 0.34 cents of land was acquired in survey No. 271/1 and the same was sub-divided into two parts as survey No. 271/1A for an extent of Ac.0.03 cents of land 271/D1 for an extent of Ac. 0.31 cents of land and accordingly compensation was paid in favour of Smt. T. Munneamma. Thereafter, in the 2011 National Highway authority has acquired land for the purpose of laying 200 ft road through the said land, wherein 485.96 Sq. meters of the land in the said survey number has been affected along with land in survey No. 272/1B/1 and award bearing No. 12/NHAI/2011, Dtd.08.09.2011 was passed in favour of the mother of the petitioner. 8. meters of the land in the said survey number has been affected along with land in survey No. 272/1B/1 and award bearing No. 12/NHAI/2011, Dtd.08.09.2011 was passed in favour of the mother of the petitioner. 8. It is submitted that after the demise of the petitioner’s mother-Smt. T. Munemma, the petitioner herein made an application for mutation of his name in the revenue records in place of his mother’s name, based on the said application, after a thorough enquiry and on pursuing the entire records, the 4th respondent-Tahsildar issued proceedings position has issued proceedings in D. Dis.A/142/2018, Dt. 10.05.2018 mutating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. 9. As against the said orders, the unofficial respondent has filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent-the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 7 of Inam Abolition Act, 1956 [for short referred as I.A.Act] read with Section 5B of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 [for short referred as ROR.Act]. Though the unofficial respondent filed the said appeal under Section 7 of the I.A. Act, but he has not questioned the patta granted in favour of the mother of the petitioner herein. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer without considering the facts and without looking into the nature of the appeal filed by the unofficial respondent passed an order vide Proc. D.Dis.G/867/18, dated 09.12.2019 setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar in mutating the name of the Petitioner in the revenue records. 10. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner also preferred a revision before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Gollapudi on 27.12.2019 but the same was not entertained by the said authority. Hence the petitioner filed W.P.No.943 of 2020, wherein this Court vide order dated 27.01.2021 suspended the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in D.Dis.G./867/2018 dated 09.12.2019. Pursuant to the said interim order, the petitioner made a representation to the Tahsildar vide an application dated 24.02.2021 seeking re-entry/ mutation of the name of the petitioner in the web-land record. Though the petitioner filed revision on the legal advice, the petitioner preferred the writ petition on the ground of jurisdiction and also procedural statutory violation, stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 7 of the I.A. Act, 1956 after lapse of 34 years. Though the petitioner filed revision on the legal advice, the petitioner preferred the writ petition on the ground of jurisdiction and also procedural statutory violation, stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 7 of the I.A. Act, 1956 after lapse of 34 years. In fact, along with the appeal, the unofficial respondent has not filed any application for condonation of delay along with the appeal and also not questioned the specific orders/granting of patta in favour of the mother of the petitioner vide order dated 17.12.1984, treating it an order of transfer or registry under Order 31 of Board Standing Orders, the appeal was entertained. 11. Even the Revenue Divisional Officer, while entertaining the appeal, has not looked into the records filed by the petitioner. The fact remains that the mother of the petitioner has purchased the properties way back in the year 1961 and 1969 through different registered sale deeds. Thereafter, in the year 1984 after due enquiry mother of the petitioner was given Ryotwari patta by the then Inam Deputy Tahsildar and her name was also mutated in all the revenue records long back. Subsequently, after the demise of the mother of the petitioner, on the application of the petitioner, considering his possession and enjoyment of the subject property, after through enquiry, the Tahsidlar issued proceedings dated 10.05.2018 mutating the name of the petitioner. 12. Replying to the averments made in the writ petition No.943 of 2020, the unofficial respondent/respondent No.6 has filed counter denying the allegations made in the writ affidavit. Further she submitted that the ancestors of the 6th respondent are the absolute possessors and enjoyers with title of the land admeasuring Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.271/1A1 of Tiruchanur Village and her title is traceable for over 70 years long. The original Inamdar Sevi Ramacharyulu Enam was mentioned in Inam Fair Register. After that Sevi Venkobacharyulu, minor Parasuramacharyulu both are sons of Ramacharyulu, mortgaged the property through Document No.219/1932 to Raghavadasu. The said Raghavadasu filed O.S.No.11/1936 in Chittoor Court for recovery of suit. The suit was decreed and the Court passed orders in favour of Raghavadasu. Thereafter the subordinate Judge Court auctioned that property. Said Raghavadasu participated in the auction with the permission of the Court and purchased the property in auction in E.P.No.62 of 1944 in O.S.No.11/1936. The said Raghavadasu filed O.S.No.11/1936 in Chittoor Court for recovery of suit. The suit was decreed and the Court passed orders in favour of Raghavadasu. Thereafter the subordinate Judge Court auctioned that property. Said Raghavadasu participated in the auction with the permission of the Court and purchased the property in auction in E.P.No.62 of 1944 in O.S.No.11/1936. Based on the sale he executed a Will No.4/1953 in favour of his adopted son S. Ramanadha Sarma. Afterwards said property was succeeded by Ramanadha Sarma’s Sons i.e., one Satyanarayana Sarma and one S. Ranganadha Sarma with possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Subsequently, both of them died. Since the Satyanarayana Sarma is unmarried, the wife of the Ranganadha Sarma, the unofficial respondent herein took care of his welfare. Hence, during the life time of Satyanarayana Sarma, he executed a will bequeathing his share in the properties in favour of the unofficial respondent, vide Document No.211/2009; that is how the unofficial respondent acquired the title over the property. Considering the said aspects by S.R.No.09/2013/ IDT No.190/2012, dt.23.3.2013, the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor granted Ryothwari Patta in favour of the unofficial respondent. Later the unofficial respondent came to know the fact that the name of Smt. T. Munemma, W/o. Govindaswamy was wrongly entered in the revenue records such as 1-B and online Adangals instead of her name. Therefore the unofficial respondent filed representation before the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural on 02.03.2016 requesting to delete the name of Smt. T. Munemma and to mutate her name in the revenue records. 13. The unofficial respondent further submitted in the counter that the petitioner is claiming title through Smt. T. Munemma under an unregistered sale deeds. The then Inams Deputy Tahsildar erroneously granted Ryothwari Palm in favour Smt. T. Munemma without proper verification of correlation of paimoish numbers with survey numbers. The said Patta was factually and procedurally incorrect and the record that was available in the department was not verified at that time. Consequently the order issued in D.Dis.A/142/2018, dt.10.5.2018 issued by the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner is also unsustainable.. While the application submitted by the 6th respondent was pending before the authorities, considering the application of the petitioner is also erroneous. Therefore, the Tahsildar should not have passed an order in favour of the petitioner without providing me a reasonable opportunity. While the application submitted by the 6th respondent was pending before the authorities, considering the application of the petitioner is also erroneous. Therefore, the Tahsildar should not have passed an order in favour of the petitioner without providing me a reasonable opportunity. Moreover, when once the Ryothwari Patta granted to the 6th respondent in S.R.No.09/2013 in IDT No.119/2012 dt.23.3.2013 had already become final and the petitioner did not challenge the same such an order should not have been passed. The Tahsildar without looked into this aspect and without conducting any enquiry, had passed the aforesaid Order dtd.10.5.2018 in favour of the petitioner. Hence aggrieved by the same, the 6th respondent filed an appeal against the orders of the mutation made by the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal for an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.271-1A1 in favour of the petitioner, under Section 5-B of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 and the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Rules, 1989 and also filed appeal against the orders of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor passed in S.R.No.66/84, IDT/1/83-CGR, dt.17.12.1984 under Section 7(2) of I.A. Act, 1956. Considering the appeal filed by the unofficial respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer has rightly passed the order dated 09.12.2019 based on the record. Therefore, prayed to dismissed the writ petition. 14. Based on the above factual aspects, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner assailed the impugned order, on the following grounds : (i) The appeal filed by the 6th respondent under Section 7 (2) of A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryothwari) Act, 1956 r/w Section 5-B of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 is only to circumvent the limitation period. (ii) In the appeal filed by the 6th respondent, he has not questioned the orders passed in favour of the mother of the petitioner in S.R.No.66/84, IDT/1/83-CGR, dt.17.12.1984. Without questioning the said orders, he has sought only for cancellation of patta granted in favour of the petitioner, by filing an appeal under Section 5B of the ROR Act, 1971. (iii) The respondents ought not to have entertained the appeal filed by the 6th respondent under the said IA.Act, 1956 after lapse of 34 years. As per the provisions of the Act, the appeal shall be filed within 60 days from the date of granting patta. (iii) The respondents ought not to have entertained the appeal filed by the 6th respondent under the said IA.Act, 1956 after lapse of 34 years. As per the provisions of the Act, the appeal shall be filed within 60 days from the date of granting patta. But in the instant case, without filing proper application to condone the delay the 6th respondent has filed the appeal. (iv) Furthermore, the 6th respondent filed the appeal under Section 7 of the IA Act, 1956 without making the proper person as party i.e., mother of the petitioner-T. Munemma, whose favour said patta has been granted on 17.12.1984. On that ground only appeal has to be rejected. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that as per Section 4 of ROR Act, 1971 any person on acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a Court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar of a land shall intimate in writing his acquisition of such right to the Mandal Revenue Officer within ninety days from the date of such acquisition, and as per the Section 5 of the said Act, on receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4, the [Mandal Revenue Officer] shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence therefor and shall carryout the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination. 16. Even in the instant case, the petitioner has got right over the property through inheritance. The patta has been granted in favour of the mother of the petitioner on 17.12.1984 and also granted in Form-8, which was implemented by mutating the name of the mother of the petitioner. Subsequently the petitioner has filed application under Section 4 of the Act, to mutate his name in the revenue records, through inheritance, based on the said application, the Tahsildar after thorough enquiry and basing on the records, mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass books. 17. Subsequently the petitioner has filed application under Section 4 of the Act, to mutate his name in the revenue records, through inheritance, based on the said application, the Tahsildar after thorough enquiry and basing on the records, mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass books. 17. The impugned order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 09.12.2019 is contrary to the record, since he has not considered the orders passed by his predecessor dated 24.05.2017 with regard to the grant of pattadar pass books in favour of the unofficial respondent in SR No.14/2013 in IDT No.190/2012, dt.23.3.2013 rejecting the claim of the unofficial respondent in an appeal filed by the identical persons. 18. Based on the above, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the appeal filed by the unofficial respondent/6th respondent dated 08.06.2018. On perusal of the said appeal, it clearly discloses that the 6th respondent has filed appeal under Section 7 (2) of A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryothwari) Act, 1956 r/w Section 5-B of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971. Said appeal has been filed making the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal as 1st respondent and the petitioner herein as the 2nd respondent. Thus, without impleading Smt. T. Munemma, in whose favour the patta was granted in the year 1984 said appeal was filed. Further, on perusal of the appeal petition, nowhere the unofficial respondent has questioned with regard to the grant of patta in favour of said Munemma, i.e., mother of the petitioner. Therefore, without making any assertions or without questioning the granting of patta in favour of the mother of the petitioner, in the relief column she has sought to set aside the Ryotwari patta granted in favour of T. Munemma. 19. Though the petitioner made a mention with regard to the grant of patta in favour of the mother of the petitioner and the same were placed before the authority, despite the same, the 6th respondent has not shown any interest to implead proper parties to question the said orders and that in the counter filed by the petitioner to the said appeal they have also specifically stated about the grant of land acquisition benefits to the mother of the petitioner in the land acquisition Award, but the same was not dealt by the 4th respondent in the impugned orders. Further they have also brought to the notice of the authority about granting of said patta by the then Inam Deputy Tahisldar, P R Musthafa Khan in favour of third parties and the District Collector in his letter dated 26.05.2014 to the Commissioner (Appeals) Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P. stating that P.R. Musthafa Khan, the then Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittor granted ryotwari pattas for the lands in Survey No.462 and 463 of Tiruchanur village in favour of some third party beneficiaries. In this connection Government issued a memo suspending the said Musthafa Khan. Despite the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the impugned order mainly on the ground that Ryotwari Patta issued in favour of the appellant i.e., respondent No.6 by the then Inam Deputy Tahsildar in the year 2013 no appeal was preferred by the respondents. Thus, the observations of the Revenue Divisional Officer while deciding the appeal are contrary to the records. 20. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the orders passed by the Sub-Collector, Tirupathi predecessor of the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 24.05.2017. In fact, the patta granted in favour of the 6th respondent in SR No.14/2013 in IDT No.190/2012, dtd.23.3.2013, some third parties belongs to the adjacent lands preferred an appeal under Section 7(2) of I.A. Act, 1956 and the same was entertained by predecessor of the 4th respondent and allowed the appeals by setting aside the patta granted by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor dated 22.03.2013 with respect to the Survey No.295/2 and also on the same day i.e. on 24.05.2017 set aside the grant of patta in favour of the some other lands. Hence, the observations of the 4th respondent in the impugned proceedings, that no appeals were filed against the patta granted in favour of the 6th respondent dated 22.03.2013 either by the petitioners or any other is contrary to the record. 21. The Revenue Divisional Officer further observed in the impugned order that though the mother of the petitioner herein i.e., T. Munemma has purchased the lands from different persons in Sy.No.271/1 duly stating old Survey Numbers with new Survey Number and also failed to defend how exactly the respondent got this old survey number details of Tiruchanur, measuring total extent of Ac.4.23 cents, but Ryotwari Patta was granted only for an extent of Ac.3.73 cents vide SR No.06/184 dtd.17.12.1984. When the issue is with regard to the grant of patta in the name of said Munemma, and mutating the name of the petitioner’s mother in the revenue records is not in dispute. 22. Above observations made by the 4th respondent, while deciding the appeal, is totally contrary to the records and also on perusal of the appeal filed by the 6th respondent from the orders passed by the Tahsildar, there is no discussion about the delay of 34 years. Even without questioning the orders passed by the Deputy Inam Tahsildar, in favour of the petitioner’s mother, on 17.12.1984, but surprisingly the 4th respondent in the impugned order, without cancelling the patta granted in favour of the mother of the petitioner, only set aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Tirupati dated 10.08.2018 i.e., mutation of the names of the petitioner’s with regard to the Sy.No.271/1A1 an extent of Ac.1-50 cents, which is totally irregular and illegal. 23. Curiously, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the observations made by predecessor of the 4th respondent in the appeals filed by some third parties/other beneficiaries of the adjacent lands against the grant of patta in favour of the 6th respondent on 24.05.2017. While deciding the said appeals, the authority has clearly taken the view that one P.R. Musthafa Khan, the then Deputy Inam Tahsildar committed certain irregularities and addressed a letter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to review the matter. Present grant is one among them. 24. Further the unofficial respondent’s claim is based on the Will executed by one Raghavadasu, but taking the observations made by the civil court, it is clearly held that the respondent i.e., the 6th respondent herein has failed to produce acceptable documentary evidence, that their predecessor Raghavadasu Bhavji is Inamdar of Tiruchanur village and mainly the rights of title over the subject land. Further the civil court has also observed the Will granted dated 16.10.1952 is void and fabricated but there is no finding with regard to the genuineness or validity of the will dated 11.02.1949, which is the basis for claim of the respondent to have title; where the predecessor had decided the appeal filed by the third parties as affected persons and held that there is no proof or genunity of the will, in favour of the unofficial respondent, hence the patta granted in favour of the unofficial respondent dated 23.03.2013 is set aside. Therefore, the 4th respondent has not at all considered the observations made by the predecessor in the said appeal and also not discussed about the same in the present impugned order. 25. Replying to the above said arguments, Sri Veera Reddy senior counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondent submitted that though the petitioners have filed an appeal under Section 7 of I.A. Act, 1956 r/w Section 5(b) of ROR Act, 1971 but the main grievance is only mutation of name of the petitioner in the Revenue records under Section 5(B) of the Act, 1971. Based on the patta granted in favour of the 6th respondent in the year 2013, she has made representation in the year 2015 while pending the said representation, without considering the same, the 5th respondent has considered the application made by the petitioner and mutated the name of the petitioner, hence, the present appeal has been filed. 26. In view of the same, if any order passed under Section 5(1) of the ROR Act, the aggrieved person can file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5(5) of the Act. In the instant case, the unofficial respondent has filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, aggrieved by the action of the Tahsildar. 27. Learned senior counsel further submitted that though specifically they have not questioned the patta granted in favour of the mother of the petitioner dated 17.12.1984 but the respondents can challenge the mutation and issuance of the pattadar pass books, in favour of the petitioner regarding unjustifiable orders passed by the Tahsildar, dated 10.05.2018. 28. 27. Learned senior counsel further submitted that though specifically they have not questioned the patta granted in favour of the mother of the petitioner dated 17.12.1984 but the respondents can challenge the mutation and issuance of the pattadar pass books, in favour of the petitioner regarding unjustifiable orders passed by the Tahsildar, dated 10.05.2018. 28. Learned senior counsel further submitted that as per the record, the unofficial respondent/6th respondent is an absolute owner and legal heir of the original grantee, hence by mistake the Deputy Inam Tahsildar erroneously granted the Ryotwari Patta in favour of T. Munemma i.e., without verifying the record, properly hence, when the 6th respondent is the absolute owner and she made an application to the Tahsildar, while pending the same, the Tahsildar ought not to have entertain the application filed by the petitioner and should not have mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. 29. To support above contentions learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments : 1. Kosaraju Balaji Vs. The State of Telangana and Others, MANU/AP/0669/2015 2. Sudershan Reddy and Ors. Vs. Joint Collector, R.R. District and Others, 2000 (6) ALD 421 3. Erroju Brahmachary Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, 2013 (1) ALD 535 4. A. Ranga Bhashyam Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2011 (1) ALD 694 5. Veerabhathini Mallesham and Ors. Vs. The State of A.P. and Others, 2014 (1) ALD 7 6. Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy Vs. Joint Collector, Cuddapah and Others, 2009 (1) ALD 248 30. In Kosaraju Balaji’s case, this court observed that - “Though specific objection was raised by the petitioner about the long and inordinate delay in filing the appeal, respondent No.3 who has adverted to the said objection in his order has nevertheless failed deal with the same. Unless the plea of respondent Nos.5 to 8 on the discovery of the alleged fraud was accepted and a specific finding was rendered by respondent No.3, he was denuded of his jurisdiction to deal with the appeal on merits”. 31. In the case of G. Sudershan Reddy and Another v. Joint collector [cited supra] it was held that if the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction, it is non-est order and it liable to be set aside as incompetent and without jurisdiction. 31. In the case of G. Sudershan Reddy and Another v. Joint collector [cited supra] it was held that if the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction, it is non-est order and it liable to be set aside as incompetent and without jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the unofficial respondent/6th respondent invoking A.P. Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Patta,1956 is barred by limitation as the same was filed after an inordinate delay of 34 years. The said appeal was entertained without any application for condonation of delay and allowing the same tantamount to an order without jurisdiction. 32. The revenue Divisional officer while exercising his powers under Section 5B of the ROR Act is only vested with the power to uphold or set aside the order under appeal. In the present case, the Revenue Divisional Officer usurped the jurisdiction of Tahsidlar and directed him to issue pattadhar passbook in the name of the 6th respondent herein/Appellant which is not under his jurisdiction. 33. Veerabhathini Mallesham and Ors. Vs. The State of A.P. and Others, 2014 (1) ALD 7 “However, under Section 5-A of the 1971 Act, a person who is an occupant of any land by virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document, is entitled to seek regularisation of the alienation. The Mandal Revenue Officer (presently the Tahsildar) is the competent authority for making such regularisation. In view of this incontrovertible position in law, respondent No. 3 has committed a serious legal error in recognising the purported unregistered sale deeds and granting reliefs to the petitioners on the basis of such sales, directing deletion of the Name of respondent No. 5, replacing the names of the petitioners in the record of rights, cancelling the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued to respondent No. 5 and directing issuance of the said documents to the petitioners. Not stopping with that, respondent No. 3 has also directed respondent No. 4 to validate the plain sale deed held by the petitioners. This sweeping order passed by respondent No. 3 cannot, therefore, by sustained in law. Furthermore, if any person, is, aggrieved by the entries, in the record of rights, he can file an appeal under Section 5(5) of the 1971, Act within. 90 days from the date of such entries being made. This sweeping order passed by respondent No. 3 cannot, therefore, by sustained in law. Furthermore, if any person, is, aggrieved by the entries, in the record of rights, he can file an appeal under Section 5(5) of the 1971, Act within. 90 days from the date of such entries being made. Respondent No. 3 has no power, as appellate authority to entertain a purported petition from the petitioners, to grant far reaching reliefs to the petitioners. Indeed, in the matter of grant of regularisation of plain sale deed, respondent No. 3 is only an appellate authority and he cannot deal with such matters unless an appeal is brought (before him against an order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 5-A of the 1971 Act. Thus, respondent No. 3 has clutched at the jurisdiction which is absolutely not vested with him and passed orders far too in excess of his jurisdiction. Even though, respondent No. 2 ought to have given all these reasons in support of his conclusion in allowing the Revision Petition filed by respondent No. 5, having regard to the inherent defects with which the order of respondent No. 3 suffers, I am not inclined to interfere with the conclusion drawn by respondent No. 2 and the result of the Revision Petition. However, this order will not preclude the petitioners from approaching respondent No. 4 seeking validation of the purported plain sale deeds. If such application is filed, respondent No. 4 shall give notices to the petitioners and respondent No. 5 and take a decision without being influenced by the order in proceedings No. B/2010/2009, dated 11.08.2010, of respondent No. 3. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed.” 34. Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy Vs. Joint Collector, Cuddapah and Others, 2009 (1) ALD 248 , wherein it is observed that – “Admittedly, neither the so-called petition is in the form of appeal affixed with the required stamp nor was filed in time. No application for condonation of delay was claimed to be filed by respondent No. 4 nor respondent No. 2 passed any order condoning the delay before entertaining and adjudicating the appeal on merits. Respondent No. 2 ought not to have, therefore, entertained the petition of respondent No. 4 and treated it as an appeal. No application for condonation of delay was claimed to be filed by respondent No. 4 nor respondent No. 2 passed any order condoning the delay before entertaining and adjudicating the appeal on merits. Respondent No. 2 ought not to have, therefore, entertained the petition of respondent No. 4 and treated it as an appeal. If respondent No. 4 was aggrieved by the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, he should have filed a statutory appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act, within the time limit, or a civil suit under Section 8(2) of the Act before the competent Civil Court. As he did not take recourse to either of the two remedies, it is beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2 to entertain the petition filed by respondent No. 4, because he has no power akin to the power vested in respondent No. 1 under Section 9 of the Act.” 35. On perusal of the appeal filed by the unofficial respondent discloses that there is no averment with regard to the delay. Though she has filed an appeal under Section 7 of the I.A. Act, said provision clearly contemplates one should have to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer within sixty days from the date of such grant. In the instant case, the patta has been granted in favour of the mother of the petitioner under Section 7(1) of the Act way back in the year 1984 i.e. on 17.12.1984. In the instant case, the appeal has to be filed against the said orders within sixty days from the date of grant. That means, the appeal should have been filed on or before 17.02.1985. If suppose the same is not filed within the stipulated period, as per the provisions of the Act, they should file a separate application for condonation of delay with specific reasons, as observed by this court in Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy Vs. Joint Collector’s case [referred supra]. 36. Considering the above submissions made by both the counsel and also on perusal of the record, this court is of the opinion that the Revenue Divisional Officer/respondent No.4 in W.P.No.943 of 2020 has not considered the appeal filed by the 6th respondent in trustworthy manner. Joint Collector’s case [referred supra]. 36. Considering the above submissions made by both the counsel and also on perusal of the record, this court is of the opinion that the Revenue Divisional Officer/respondent No.4 in W.P.No.943 of 2020 has not considered the appeal filed by the 6th respondent in trustworthy manner. In fact, on the identical issue, the appeals field by some third parties against the grant of Ryotwari patta in favour of the unofficial respondent/6th respondent before the Sub Collector, Tirupati were decided vide proceedings D.Dis.No.G/1100/2016 and D.Dis.G/384/2016, dated 24.05.2017 against the 6th respondent. Again the very same authority is not entitled to take a contrary view allowing the appeal filed by the 6th respondent herein. On perusal of the impugned orders, the 1st ground, for allowing the appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer, in the impugned order is that no appeals have filed against the pattas granted in favour of the 6th respondent dated 23.03.2013 either by the petitioner or any other person is contrary to the record. In fact, the very same patta was assailed before the very same authority and has been decided in their proceedings dated 24.05.2017. 37. Apart from that when there is appeal filed questioning under Section 7(2) of the I.A. Act, r/w Section 5B of the ROR Act herein but surprisingly in the impugned order, there is no finding with regard to the patta granted in favour of the mother of the petitioner in the year 1984 dated 17.12.1984. When the patta granted in favour of the mother of the petitioner is subsisting, the Revenue Divisional Officer ought not to have interfere on the orders passed by the Tahsildar in D.Dis NO.A/142/2018 dated 10.08.2018. 38. On perusal of the record, it is not in dispute and also not disputed by the 6th respondent herein with regard to the existence of patta in favour of the mother of the petitioner. Hence, without cancelling the patta and without assailing said proceedings through an appropriate application, the Revenue Divisional Officer should not have entertained the appeal filed by the 6th respondent and he is not entitled to give contrary observations. 39. Hence, without cancelling the patta and without assailing said proceedings through an appropriate application, the Revenue Divisional Officer should not have entertained the appeal filed by the 6th respondent and he is not entitled to give contrary observations. 39. Considering both the factual aspects and the provision of law, the impugned order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 19.12.2019 is set aside, declaring that the same is contrary to law as well as the record and directing the Tahsildar, to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, based on the patta granted in favour of the mother of the petitioner on 17.12.1984 as per Section 4(1) of the ROR Act. 40. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.