ORDER : The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “… to issue a writ, order or direction declaring the orders vide D.Dis No.6043/2016/D4, dated 19.01.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent is illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”. 2. The averments, in brief, in the affidavit are that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.0.77 cents in Sy.No.265-2; Ac.0.38 cents in Sy.No.260-6 and Ac.0.57 cents in Sy.No.260-7 totalling Ac.1.72 cents in Kunuthuru Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District. Petitioner acquired the property by way of registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 10.03.2006 executed by Grandfather Balagonda Nadipu Bodaiah. Petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The 4th respondent updated the Record of Right and issued pattadar pass book in favour of the petitioner. (a) The 5th respondent, brother of the petitioner, filed O.S.No.193 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram against the petitioner and others seeking partition. The said suit was dismissed for default on 02.02.2017. The 5th respondent filed W.P.No.23375 of 2016 and the same was disposed of on 22.07.2016. After disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner made representation dated 18.08.2016 to the District Collector, Anantapuram District seeking cancellation of pattadar pass book and title deeds. (b) The 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Anantapur by proceedings in D.Dis.No.6043/2016/D4, dated 19.01.2018 ordered deletion of entries of petitioner against the properties mentioned and further directed the Tahsildar, Dharmavaram to issue Title Deed cum Pattadar Pass Book to the rightful pattadar after due enquiry as per the procedure. Aggrieved by the said direction, the above writ petition is filed. 3. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit. It was contended in the counter-affidavit that the 2nd respondent conducted enquiry. The Tahsildar, Dharmavaram submitted report in Rc.No.C/237/2017, dated 09.11.2017 stating that Nadipi Bodaiah died on 20.08.2005. The sons of Nadipi Bodaiah i.e. Mallanna and Naganna are having equal rights in the property. Elder son Mallanna executed registered sale deed dated 31.01.2011 in favour of his son B.Ravindra in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.0.77 cents in Sy.No.265-2, Ac.0.38 cents in Sy.No.260-6 and Ac.0.57 cents in Sy.No.260-7. The sons of Nadipi Bodaiah i.e. Mallanna and Naganna are having equal rights in the property. Elder son Mallanna executed registered sale deed dated 31.01.2011 in favour of his son B.Ravindra in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.0.77 cents in Sy.No.265-2, Ac.0.38 cents in Sy.No.260-6 and Ac.0.57 cents in Sy.No.260-7. After considering the same, the Authority directed for deletion of entries from the electronically maintained Record of Rights and further directed the Tahsildar, to conduct enquiry and issue Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed to the rightful pattadar. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri Sivaram, learned counsel representing Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Sri P.Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri Vijay Ashrit, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the order impugned in the writ petition. The 2nd respondent could not have decided the genuineness of registered Dana-settlement Deed dated 10.03.2006. He would also submit that the 5th respondent filed suit O.S.No.193 of 2012 and after dismissal of the suit, approached the Revenue authorities. He would also submit that the Joint Collector did not record any finding regarding non-adherence procedure mandated under the Andhra Pradesh (Rights in Land) and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Act) and the Rules made thereunder. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent on the other hand would contend that the Grandfather Nadipi Bodaiah died on 20.08.2005. Hence, the execution of Gift Deed does not arise. The petitioner fabricated the document and got his name mutated in the revenue records. The 2nd respondent after conducting enquiry directed the Tahsildar for deletion of entries and further directed the Tahsildar to issue Pattadar Pass Book to rightful pattadar. Learned counsel further contended that the Joint Collector, Anantapur followed the procedure and hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. The point for consideration is: 1. Whether the Joint Collector or other Revenue authorities can go into and decide the title dispute between the parties while adjudicating the revision or appeal under the A.P (Rights in Land) and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971? 2. Whether the Joint Collector can exercise suo moto jurisdiction after long lapse of time? 8. 7. The point for consideration is: 1. Whether the Joint Collector or other Revenue authorities can go into and decide the title dispute between the parties while adjudicating the revision or appeal under the A.P (Rights in Land) and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971? 2. Whether the Joint Collector can exercise suo moto jurisdiction after long lapse of time? 8. The petitioner is claiming right over the property of an extent of Ac.0.77 cents in Sy.No.265-2; Ac.0.38 cents in Sy.No.260-6 and Ac.0.57 cents in Sy.No.260-7 in Kunuthuru Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapur District by virtue of registered Dana-settlement Deed, dated 10.03.2006 said to have been executed by Nadipi Bodaiah. Petitioner made application before the Tahsildar, Dharmavaram to update Record of Rights. The Tahsildar after conducing enquiry, updated the Record of Rights and issued Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed in favour of the petitioner vide Patta No.10296. Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed as seen from the record were issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 2006. 9. The 5th respondent, brother of the petitioner filed suit O.S.No.193 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram seeking partition of the properties. The petitioner is shown as 2nd defendant in the suit. The said suit was dismissed for default on 02.02.2017. 10. The 5th respondent made representation dated 02.05.2016 to the District Collector, Anantapur and thereafter filed W.P.No.23375 of 2016. Writ Petition was dismissed observing that the petitioner got remedy under Section 9 of the Act. Pursuant to the said observation, petitioner made representation dated 18.08.2016 before the District Collector. The 2nd respondent-Joint Collector admitted the same as suo moto revision under Section 9 of the Act vide Rc.No.6043/2016/D4, dated 15.09.2016. 11. The Joint Collector called for a report from the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar, Dharmavaram, in turn, submitted report dated 09.11.2017 stating that Nadipi Bodaiah died on 20.08.2005. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner disputed death of Nadipi Bodaiah and contended that in fact, Nadipi Bodiah, his Grandfather, received pension in October, 2006 and also received pension from the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Dharmavaram in June, 2007. According to the petitioner Nadipi Bodaiah died in the year 2008. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner disputed death of Nadipi Bodaiah and contended that in fact, Nadipi Bodiah, his Grandfather, received pension in October, 2006 and also received pension from the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Dharmavaram in June, 2007. According to the petitioner Nadipi Bodaiah died in the year 2008. 12. The 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, based on the report of the Tahsildar, concluded that Nadipi Bodaiah died on 20.08.2005 and hence, directed the Tahsildar to delete the entries from the electronically maintained Record of Rights and further directed to conduct enquiry afresh. Nothing was recorded by the Joint Collector regarding non-adherence procedure contemplated under the Act or Rules made thereunder. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahila Bajrangi (Dead) through LRs. v. Badribai, W/o. Jagannath, (2003) 2 SCC 464 , held that the Tahsildar or authorities exercising powers of mutation (original, appellate or revisional) have not been accorded the status of civil Courts or Courts of exclusive jurisdiction and further held that mutation proceedings before the revenue authorities were not judicial proceedings in a Court of law and do not decide questions of title to immovable properties. 14. In Faqruddin (Dead) through LRs. v. Tajuddin (Dead) through L.Rs., (2008) 8 SCC 12 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that an entry in the revenue records is not a document of title. Revenue authorities cannot decide a question of title. A title does not remain in vacuum and must be determined keeping in view the law operating in the field viz., religious law or statutory law or customary law. 15. In Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186 , it was held that entries in the revenue records do not confer title and are only intended for achieving the fiscal purpose and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. Further observed that, so far as the title to the property is concerned, it could only be decided by a competent civil Court. 16. Thus a conspectus of the expression of the Hon’ble Apex Court, revenue authorities are not substitutes to Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction. Needless to state revenue authorities, in summary enquiry, would not be capable of deciding complicated questions of title. 16. Thus a conspectus of the expression of the Hon’ble Apex Court, revenue authorities are not substitutes to Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction. Needless to state revenue authorities, in summary enquiry, would not be capable of deciding complicated questions of title. However, the Tahsildar, is authorized to conduct summary enquiry in respect of cases failing under Rule 9(1)(a)(i) and can consider evidence in respect of cases falling under Rule 9(1)(a)(ii) of the Rules. Summary enquiry cannot be a substitute for adjudication by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 17. The case on hand pattadar pass book and title deed were granted in favour of petitioner in the year 2006. 5th respondent made representation dated 02.05.2016 and later filed writ petition and the same was dismissed with observation. Another representation was made on 18.08.2016 to the District Collector. The same was taken up by exercising suo-moto powers. Thus, after a decade, 2nd respondent joint collector exercised suo-moto powers and entertained revision. Exercising of suo-moto power does not mean that even after a decade the authority entertains revision. Even entertaining revision suomoto it should be within a reasonable period. 18. In State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha, AIR 1969 SC 1297 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that revisional power must be exercised in reasonable time even if no period of limitation is prescribed and that the length of reasonable time must be determined on the facts of the case and the nature of the order revised. The Supreme Court also observed that when the title of an occupant is disputed and the dispute is serious, the appropriate course for the Collector or the Commissioner would be to refer the parties to a competent Court and not to decide the question of title himself against the occupant 19. In Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy, (2003) 7 SCC 667 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that orders attaining finality, the certainty of rights of the parties accrued in the light of such orders must have sanctity. Exercise of suo motu power ‘at any time’ only means that no specific period such as days, months or years are prescribed from a particular date. But that does not mean that ‘at any time’ should be unguided and arbitrary, and must be understood as being within a reasonable time depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. Exercise of suo motu power ‘at any time’ only means that no specific period such as days, months or years are prescribed from a particular date. But that does not mean that ‘at any time’ should be unguided and arbitrary, and must be understood as being within a reasonable time depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. One should oblivious of the fact that Pattadar Pass Book will be issued based on record of rights. Thus, a person aggrieved by issuance of Pattadar Pass Book should invariably seek the relief of setting aside of entries of record rights and consequently issuance of Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed. The case on hand remanding the matter to the Tahsildar to conduct fresh enquiry and to issue Pattadar Pass Book and title deed, in the opinion of this Court, the Tahsildar concerned, had no jurisdiction of review to correct the record of rights. It is only the appellate authority got such jurisdiction. Only in case of clerical or arithmetical errors, the Tahsildar can correct. 21. Turning to the facts of the case, as per the pleadings, whether Nadipi Bodaiah died on 20.08.2005 or in the year 2008 is a matter to be adjudicated after the evidence is let in by the respective parties. Petitioner and the 5th respondent are natural brothers. Petitioner is claiming title by virtue of registered settlement deed and 5th respondent is claiming title by virtue of sale deed executed by his own father. 22. It is not out of place to mention that the 5th respondent filed suit for partition and the same was dismissed for default. It became final. Thereafter representation was filed and the same was taken up as suo moto revision. As seen from the order of the Joint Collector, the authority concluded that Nadipi Bodaiah died in the year 2005. Such a finding was recorded by the Joint Collector based on the report of the Tahsildar. As noted supra, petitioner contended that Nadipi Bodaiah died in the year 2008. This being a disputed question of fact, in the opinion of this Court, the Joint Collector ought not to have acted upon the report of the Tahsildar in that regard. Thus, in the considered opinion of this court, learned Joint Collector, exceeded its jurisdiction. 23. Thus, the order dated 19.01.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent in D.Dis.No.6043/2016/D4, is set aside. This being a disputed question of fact, in the opinion of this Court, the Joint Collector ought not to have acted upon the report of the Tahsildar in that regard. Thus, in the considered opinion of this court, learned Joint Collector, exceeded its jurisdiction. 23. Thus, the order dated 19.01.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent in D.Dis.No.6043/2016/D4, is set aside. Indeed, no finding was recorded by the 2nd respondent, in the order impugned, about the non adherence of procedure by Tahsildar concerned at the time of updating record of rights and issuance of Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed in favour of writ petitioner. 24. Whenever an appeal or revision is filed qua updation of the Record of Rights or issuance of Pattadar Pass Book or Title Deed either the appellate authority or the revisional authority should record a finding about non adherence of the procedure mandated under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. 25. In view of the discussion, the matter is remitted back to the Joint Collector, Anantapuramu to conduct enquiry afresh and record a finding as to the non-adherence of procedure contemplated under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The 2nd respondent also shall consider the suo moto power to entertain revision in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The 2nd respondent shall dispose of the revision within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the petitioner and the 5th respondent shall cooperate during the enquiry. 26. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.