ORDER : 1. Writ Petition No.7403 of 2014 is filed for the following relief: “….to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction, preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings bearing No.D.Dis/(H)/682/2014, dated 05.02.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India by setting aside the said proceedings and pending disposal of the above writ petition, suspend the operation of the Proceedings bearing No. D.Dis/(H)/682/2014, dated 05.02.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent, by directing the respondent not to dispossess the petitioners in respect of their agricultural lands, admeasuring AC.0.99 cents in Survey No.137/1B, Ac.0.07 Cents in Survey No.138/4B, Ac.0.99 cents in Survey No.137/1C, , Ac.0.07 Cents in Survey No.138/4C, , Ac.1.00 Cents in Survey No.137/1A and , Ac.0.08 Cents in Survey No.138/4A, situated in Srikalahasti village, Srikalahasti Mandal (under Tirupati Revenue District), Chittoor; and pass such other order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” Writ Petition No.7408 of 2014 is filed for the following relief: “….to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction, preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings bearing No.D.Dis/(H)/4651/2014, dated 05.02.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India by setting aside the said proceedings and pending disposal of the above writ petition, suspend the operation of the Proceedings bearing No. D.Dis/(H)/4651/2014, dated 05.02.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent, by directing the respondent not to dispossess the petitioners 1 to 4 in respect of their agricultural lands, admeasuring Ac.3.20 cents situated in Survey No.22 of Panagal Village, Srikalahasti Mandal (under Tirupati Revenue District), Chittoor and petitioner No.5 in respect of Ac.0-56 cents of agricultural land situate in Survey No.33/1 of Panagal village, Srikalahasti Mandal (under Tirupati Revenue District), Chittoor and pass such other order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Since the subject matter and the relief sought for in both these matters are one and the same, W.P.No.7403 of 2014 is taken up for hearing with the consent of both the learned counsel. 3. Since the subject matter and the relief sought for in both these matters are one and the same, W.P.No.7403 of 2014 is taken up for hearing with the consent of both the learned counsel. 3. This Court has heard Sri P. Rama Bhoopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.7403 of 2014 submits that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the lands, which are the subject matter of the Writ Petition, having acquired the same through various sale deeds in 1997. All the lands are situated in Srikalahasti. The petitioners claiming that they have acquired the property from their vendors, who got the property through one Pasala Munaiah. The Pattadar Passbook and ROR books were in favour of the petitioners. After acquisition fresh Pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued to the petitioners in 1997. It is submitted that the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property. The 4th respondent, who claims to be a legal heir of the original allottee of the property, has made an application, which is treated as an appeal under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short “ROR Act”) by the 2nd respondent, who entertained the same and passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order is ex facie bad in law because it is entertained far after the prescribed period of limitation. The acquisition of the property by the petitioners was in 1997, the Pattadar passbooks were issued in the year 2006 and the alleged appeal is filed in 2013-14. Learned counsel points out that in the appeal submitted the 4th respondent is claiming to be the granddaughter of one Munaiah, but she is claiming exclusive right over the property as if she is the sole legal heir. It is also pointed out that as can be seen from the impugned order the respondents have raised number of grounds including the bar of limitation. It is also stated that there is no documentary evidence produced to prove that the 4th respondent is the sole legal heir of P. Munaiah. The right of the respondent to entertain an appeal directly is also raised as a ground. It is also stated that there is no documentary evidence produced to prove that the 4th respondent is the sole legal heir of P. Munaiah. The right of the respondent to entertain an appeal directly is also raised as a ground. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite the said objection being raised the impugned order came to be passed. It is also admitted in the impugned order that the respondents are in possession of the property. Learned counsel argues that the Pattadar passbook and ROR Act is self contained Code. There is hierarchy of appeals/revisions provided. However, a time period is also provided for entertaining the same. It is argued that the RDO does not have the power to entertain the appeal. It is also argued that the RDO did not exercise his mind independently and relied upon a report of Tahsildar. This practice, according to the learned counsel, was commented upon by this Court in the judgment of K.Venkat Rao and another V Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool and others, 2014 (1) ALD 748 . It is also submitted that in the course of the impugned order the 2nd respondent has also decided the complicated questions of fact and title. It is, therefore, submitted that the entire order is vitiated and that the petitioners are entitled to a relief as prayed for. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, has filed a counter affidavit and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue has relied upon by the same and advanced his arguments. It is admitted that there is no dispute essentially about the facts that are stated in the Writ Petition. It is also pointed out that the petitioners have purchased the properties and they later also secured the Pattadar passbooks. Learned Government Pleader argues that in the impugned order the rights were not finally decided and the matter was in fact remanded to Tahsildar, Srikalahasti to take necessary action as per the ROR Act. Therefore, it is submitted that instead of agitating their rights before the Tahsildar the Writ Petitioner has rushed to this Court and have filed a Writ Petition. It is also pointed out that under Section 8(2) of the ROR Act a person aggrieved has a right to file a civil suit for declaration under Chapter-VI of Specific Relief Act. Therefore, learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 6. It is also pointed out that under Section 8(2) of the ROR Act a person aggrieved has a right to file a civil suit for declaration under Chapter-VI of Specific Relief Act. Therefore, learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 6. On behalf of the 4th respondent also arguments advanced by Sri V. Eswaraiah Chowdary. Learned counsel submits that as the 4th respondent is the legal heir of late P. Munaiah she is entitled to present the appeal and the same was rightly entertained by the 2nd respondent-RDO. The order passed is also justified by the learned counsel by pointing out that various infirmities are pointed out by the RDO before coming to the conclusion. It is also reiterated that ultimately the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar for a decision. By relying upon a judgment reported in Krishtappa and others v Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Ananthapur and others, 2014 (4) ALD 8 , learned counsel justifies the action of the RDO. He also points out that instead of approaching the Collector by way of revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act the Writ Petition is filed. Therefore, it is pointed out that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. He also relies upon the fact that the legal heir certificate is issued in favour of the 4th respondent. It is argued that the RDO is passed the impugned order correctly. It is also submitted that the alleged delay in filing the appeal is also condoned. Learned counsel also submits that the alleged sale deeds (P2 to P4) are purely sham, nominal and fraudulent documents executed by the people who have no title to the property at all. Therefore, learned counsel argues that the Writ Petition should be dismissed. 7. This Court, after hearing all the learned counsels notices that there are very seriously disputed questions of fact in this case. The 4th respondent is before this Court stating categorically in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit that the sale deeds in favour of the writ petitioners are executed by Sri P. Bhaskar Rao and others, who have nothing to do with the property and that they are not the family members of the 4th respondent’s father or grandfather. The 4th respondent is before this Court stating categorically in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit that the sale deeds in favour of the writ petitioners are executed by Sri P. Bhaskar Rao and others, who have nothing to do with the property and that they are not the family members of the 4th respondent’s father or grandfather. It is also stated that the sale deeds P2 to P4 are purely sham, nominal, fraudulent, created or fictitious documents executed for the purpose of agitating the petitioners. While there is an inconsistency in this plea taken in paragraph 16 of the counter, the fact, however, remains that the 4th respondent is alleging that the petitioners do not have any title to the land. It is stated that their deeds are fraudulent etc. It is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in a Writ Petition. 8. The further question that also arises for consideration is the claim of the 4th respondent. She claims to be exclusive legal heir of her grandfather, who is the original inamdar. This is also not borne out by the record. This is also a disputed question which has to be established. 9. Apart from this, this Court also notices that an appeal lies to the RDO within 60 days against every order of the recording authority making an amendment in the Record of Rights (Section 5(3) read with Rule 21). The case law is well settled. For the sake of good order the judgment in Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy v Joint Collector, Cuddapah and Others, 2009 (1) ALD 248 , is relied. The issue of limitation is thus a crucial issue. This is not been addressed by the RDO in the course of his impugned order. In a number of judgments, this Court has held that applications cannot be entertained after a lapse of a reasonable time. In the case on hand, the petitioners are claiming to have been issued a Pattadar Passbook in the year 2006/2007 and the appeal is preferred in 2013. This is an issue which has been raised before the RDO but is not answered. 10. It is also pointed out there is no specific order of the Tahsildar against which an appeal could have been preferred by the 4th respondent. This is an issue which has been raised before the RDO but is not answered. 10. It is also pointed out there is no specific order of the Tahsildar against which an appeal could have been preferred by the 4th respondent. Neither of the issues that are raised has actually been considered by the RDO in the course of his impugned order. A single line is written in the order stating that a substantial error cannot be overcome by afflux of time. In the opinion of this court, the RDO had a duty to consider whether the appeal was filed in time or not and addressed the issue in the course of his order. 6 years after the Pattadar Passbooks were issued the claim is made before the RDO. This is substantial error which is visible ex facie from the reading of the order. In addition, the RDO also committed an error in cancelling the Pattadar passbook and also entries in the revenue records. If he was of the opinion that the matter has to be remanded he should have preserved the status quo and then remanded the matter to the Tahsildar. After passing final order of cancelling of entries and also the Pattadar passbooks/title deeds and in fact virtually allowing the appeal the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar. Therefore, it is clear that the order in question suffers from the lack of application of mind. 11. It is also clear that the 4th respondent’s claim is based upon her status as legal heir of the original inamdar. This is a matter, which in the opinion of this Court, requires a “declaration of status”. It is also alleged that the documents on which writ petitioners relied upon are executed by people who had no title and are also fake, sham and nominal documents. Again these are all matters which can only be decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction in an appropriate proceedings. The RDO or the Tahsildar is not competent to decide these complex disputed questions of fact involving “title” to property. 12. It is also argued in the passing that the petitioners have approached this court when there is an effective alternative remedy under section 9 of the ROR Act. The law on the subject is also very well settled. The RDO or the Tahsildar is not competent to decide these complex disputed questions of fact involving “title” to property. 12. It is also argued in the passing that the petitioners have approached this court when there is an effective alternative remedy under section 9 of the ROR Act. The law on the subject is also very well settled. The mere fact that an alternative remedy will not preclude this Court from entertaining a writ petition or passing an order thereon if it comes to the conclusion that the rules of natural justice was overlooked or is manifestly perverse etc. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order suffers from serious infirmities. This Court in the course of order has noticed that the RDO did not address the actual issues raised and virtually passed a final order by cancelling the Pattadar Passbook and also setting aside the entries in the records before stating that the matter is remanded. This itself is enough for this Court to hold that the order is wholly without jurisdiction. Consequently it is held the existence of an alternative remedy is not a ground to prevent this Court from entertaining the Writ Petition. 13. In W.P.No.7408 of 2014 also the petitioners 1 to 4 are claiming title through Smt. A.Venkatamma, who purchased Ac.3-20 cents of land from Pasala Venkateswamy and others through a registered sale deed dated 11.09.1978. She was issued a Pattadar Passbook and title deed also. After her demise petitioners 1 to 4 are claiming rights under the land. As far as the 5th respondent is concerned, he traced his title through Kalathur Purushotam, Kalathur Vijaykumar and others and ultimately through a Registered Sale Deed dated 05.11.2013. The rights of the respondents are completely denied and it is stated that they do not have the “locus”. It is asserted that Smt. Venkatamma died in 2001 itself, long prior to the passing of the impugned order in the appeal, said to have been filed by the respondents in a writ, but the order considers her case. An issue of limitation is also raised and it is pointed that the appeal was attacked on the point of delay. These are not at all answered. The other legal issues are largely the same. 14. This Court notices that even in this case the issue of delay is not correctly entertained nor answered. An issue of limitation is also raised and it is pointed that the appeal was attacked on the point of delay. These are not at all answered. The other legal issues are largely the same. 14. This Court notices that even in this case the issue of delay is not correctly entertained nor answered. That Smt. Venkatamma is in possession is also noted in that order. However, this Court notices that as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners the RDO came to the conclusion that the vendors are mere joint pattadras and not absolute owners. This finding is also, in the opinion of this Court, not supported by any record proof. It is also a finding in the nature of the declaration of a right. Similarly, the case of the 5th respondent also while it is a fact that unregistered documents were executed, no discussion is forthcoming as to why title was not passed on nor about possession. It is also noted that these are service inam lands and not assigned inam lands. Lastly, in this case also, this Court notices that all the Pattadar Passbooks and also the entries in the accounts are cancelled. This again is contrary to the law. Since detailed reasons are given while disposing W.P.No.7403 of 2014, no further reasons are not elaborated and similar flaws and mistakes are noticed in the impugned order challenged in W.P.No.7408 of 2014 also. For the same reasons mentioned in the previous part of the order while dealing with W.P.No.7403 of 2014, this impugned order is also set aside. 15. For all the above reasons the impugned orders in W.P.No.7403 of 2014 and W.P.No.7408 of 2014 i.e., Orders in D.Dis.No.(H)/682/2014 and D.Dis.No.(H)/4651/2014, dated 05.02.2014, and the directions therein are set aside. This order will not preclude the unofficial respondents from agitating their claims in an appropriate forum. If and when such proceedings are initiated all the defenses that are available in law are open to be raised by the writ petitioners also. 16. With the above observations the writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Opinions expressed herein are for the purpose of this order only. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.