ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief : “…to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned endorsement dated 19.11.2018 in R.C.No.478/2018/A issued by the 4th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to consequently direct the respondents to forthwith reconsider the case of the petitioner and mutate her name in the revenue records and issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in her name, in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.3-67 cents in Sy.No.129-1A1 and Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.129-1B1 situated at Kappalabanda village, Puttaparthy Mandal, Ananthapuram District by further directing the 4th respondent not to create any third party rights in respect of the above lands, award compensation…..….” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that her husband, Golla Bayappa, purchased an extent of Ac.3-67 cents in Sy.No.129-1 of Kappalabanda Revenue village, Puttaparthy Mandal, Ananthapuram District from its rightful owners through a registered sale deed dated 22.06.1970 vide document No.784 of 1970 and he purchased another extent of Ac.1-00 in the above survey number through registered sale deed vide document No.1261 of 1970 and ever since, they are in possession and enjoyment of the above lands by raising crops therein. It is her further case that pursuant to the application made by her husband on 19.05.1989, Mandal Surveyor surveyed the said lands along with other lands and the 4th respondent issued proceedings dated 08.01.1990 allotting Sy.No.129-1A1 to Ac.3-67 cents and Sy.No.129-1B1 to Ac.1-00. Thereafter, when some third parties made representation to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar claiming right over the above lands, the 4th respondent after due enquiry passed order dated 05.04.1992 confirming the right, title and possession of petitioner’s husband over the subject lands and his name was also mutated in revenue records and the 4th respondent had also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in his name and the petitioner’s husband, during his lifetime, had availed loan from Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Kothacheruvu, Ananthapuram District by depositing his title deeds and registered sale deeds. It is her further case that her husband died on 01.06.2006 leaving behind him the petitioner and four sons and they came into possession and enjoyment of the above lands and on being insisted by the bank authorities to produce passbook and title deeds standing in the name of the petitioner and her sons, she being the elder member of the family, submitted several representations including the one made on 22.05.2018 requesting the respondent authorities to mutate her name in the revenue records and issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in her name and she also made online request on 21.05.2018 through E-seva vide application No.RMU011800676306. It is the further case of the petitioner that, as there was no response inspite of lapse of considerable time, she filed writ petition vide W.P.No.29757 of 2018 seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to mutate her name in revenue records and issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in her name in respect of the subject lands and the said writ petition was disposed of on 21.08.2018 with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s online application. It is the further case of the petitioner that, the 4th respondent issued the impugned endorsement dated 19.11.2018 in R.C.No.478/2018/A rejecting her request on the ground that the lands in question are banjar lands and after grant of D-form patta her husband had never entered into possession of the land and even after his death, the petitioner had not entered into possession of land except requesting for issuance of pattadar passbooks. It is the further case of the petitioner that, the 4th respondent in impugned endorsement alleged that the petitioner’s husband, after grant of D-form patta, had entered into agreements with third parties during the years 1997 and 1998, but registration was not effected since the land was an assigned land and the said impugned endorsement issued by the 4th respondent is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and without application of mind, since the 4th respondent cannot decide the title of the parties. It is the further case of the petitioner that, when once her husband was issued pattadar passbooks in respect of the subject lands, after his demise the petitioner is entitled for issuance of pattadar pass books in her name and if anybody is aggrieved and disputes her title, it is for them to approach the competent forum of law, hence it is not for the 4th respondent to decide the title of the parties in an application made for issuance of the pattadar passbooks, however having been influenced by the land grabbers and local politicians the 4th respondent issued the impugned endorsement, since some third party rights are sought to be created by the 4th respondent in respect of the subject lands, the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition. 3. Though this writ petition was filed way back in the year 2019, no counter has been filed by the revenue authorities. 4. Heard Sri O.Uday Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 5. Sri O.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ petition, contended that the impugned proceedings are ex facie illegal and it is passed without application of mind. The learned counsel has further contended that the authorities have not disputed about issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioner’s husband and that the subject land was sub divided and has drawn attention of this Court to the relevant observation made in the impugned proceedings to the effect that the petitioner’s husband was in possession of the land as on the date of sub division. Thus, the reason offered by the Tahsidlar for rejecting the claim of the petitioner that neither the petitioner nor her husband was never in possession of the land is contrary the observation made by the Tahsildar referred to above and thus the authorities have not properly applied its mind by adverting to the documents available on record. Further, since the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of being heard, the impugned proceedings are unsustainable and if they are not set aside the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Further, since the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of being heard, the impugned proceedings are unsustainable and if they are not set aside the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if the 4th respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders by taking into consideration the material available on record and after hearing the petitioner, the same would be sufficient for the time being and he restricted the relief to that extent and prayed to pass appropriate orders. 6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has contended that the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Lands and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 provides for an appeal against the orders passed by the Tahsildar and instead of preferring an appeal, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. It is further contended that the subject land was assigned to the husband of the petitioner under a D-form patta, whereas the petitioner is falsely claiming title to the property byway of purchase. It is further contended that the 4th respondent has perused the material available on record and has passed a detailed order giving sufficient reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner and the same does not require any interference of this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perusal of the impugned proceedings clearly shows that, at one breath it has been stated that as on the date of sub division of the land held in the year 1990, the petitioner’s husband was shown as possessor of Survey No.129-1A1 and 129-1B1 for an extent of Ac.3-67 and Ac.1-00 respectively, whereas, in the same proceedings, at another breath, at concluding paragraph, the Tahsildar has held that neither the petitioner nor her husband entered into the property within three years from the date of issuance of patta. It is the specific case of the petitioner that her husband had purchased the property under registered sale deeds and on the strength of those registered sale deeds, he has obtained pattadar passbook and title deeds and thus the petitioner claims title over the subject lands by virtue of registered sale deeds and not by grant of any patta. It is the specific case of the petitioner that her husband had purchased the property under registered sale deeds and on the strength of those registered sale deeds, he has obtained pattadar passbook and title deeds and thus the petitioner claims title over the subject lands by virtue of registered sale deeds and not by grant of any patta. Thus, the observation made by Tahsildar regarding non-entering into possession of the land within three faslie years from the date of issuance of patta is not in consonance with the title claimed by the petitioner over the subject lands. Further, the impugned proceedings does not contain as to under what authority and under which provision of law it has been passed. The impugned proceedings styled as an endorsement and not as an order and further it contains contradictory versions regarding possession, as such the same is liable to be set aside. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (a) The impugned endorsement dated 19.11.2018 in R.C.No.478/2018/A issued by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, Puttaparthy Mandal, Ananthapuram District, is hereby set aside (b) The petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh representation to the 4th respondent enclosing all the documents in support of her claim within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order (c) On receipt of such representation, the 4th respondent is directed to pass a reasoned order within a period of eight (08) weeks thereafter, by giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and by taking into consideration the records available and the material relied on by the petitioner and communicate the same to the petitioner (d) There shall be no order as to costs. As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.