ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners 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 action of the 3rd respondent in passing orders vide Rc.No.3624/2015-A dated 07.01.2016 basing on the representation given by the respondent No.5 requesting him to cancel the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioners and consequential orders passed by the 2nd respondent in Revision Petition vide D.Dis.No.1003/2016-D5, dated 11.12.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and contrary to the ROR Act and the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.21689 of 1999 and consequently set aside the same…..….” 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are owners and possessors of the lands in an extent of Ac.6-26 cents in D.No.5-1, Ac. 4-76 cents in D.No.35, Ac. 7-65 cents in D.No.36, Ac.0-29 cents in D.No.6 and Ac.3-70 cents in D.No.7, in total an extent of Ac.22-66 cents in Mannesultanpalem village, Bellamkonda Mandal, Guntur District, which was purchased by their father from rightful owner Kasiraju Ramachandra Anjaneya Sharma on 02.01.1983. Consequent to death of their father in the year 1994, their names were mutated in the revenue records and the revenue authorities issued patttadar passbook and title deeds in their favour. It is their further case that when the 5th respondent with the help of 3rd and 4th respondents tried to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the subject lands, they filed injunction suit vide O.S.No.162 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapally to restrain the defendants from manipulating the revenue records and the said suit was dismissed on 01.05.2017 holding that the 5th respondent approached the revenue authorities for the same grievance and the authorities passed orders dated 07.01.2016. It is the further case of the petitioners that, during pendency of the suit filed by them, the 5th respondent, alleging that he had purchased the property, made a representation to the authorities to cancel the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners and the 3rd respondent, without hearing them, cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in their favour in relation to Sy.No.5/1A to an extent of Ac.4-26 cents, Sy.No.35 to an extent of Ac.4-76 cents and Sy.No.36 to an extent of Ac.7-65 cents, vide proceedings in Rc.No.3624/2015-A, dated 07.01.2016. It is the further case of the petitioners that, the 3rd respondent ought not to have entertained the representation of the 5th respondent for the reasons that the same was not an appeal filed in the prescribed format and the same was not filed within 30 days from the date of issuance of the pattadar passbooks in the year 2003. Thus, the order passed by the 3rd respondent is highly illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. It is the further case of the petitioners that, they had preferred a revision before the 2nd respondent against the orders passed by the 3rd respondent on 07.01.2016 contending that there are serious disputes with regard to title over the property and the authorities cannot adjudicate the same and the said revision was dismissed on the premise that the civil Court had confirmed the title of the 5th respondent and two other persons whose pattadar passbooks were cancelled have not preferred revision. It is their further case that, the civil Court did not give any finding with regard to the title to the property and the said suit was dismissed on the ground that the 5th respondent availed alternative remedy. Thus, the findings of the 2nd respondent are highly illegal and exhibits non-application of mind. It is the further case of the petitioners that, the impugned order is prima facie not sustainable since the 3rd respondent is incompetent to entertain the representation of the 5th respondent which is made to cancel the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioners and that too not by way of an appeal and without any petition for condonation of delay, since there is a delay of 12 years in filing the representation. Thus, the order passed by the 3rd respondent and the consequential orders passed by the 2nd respondent, are illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and as the 4th respondent is trying to change the entries in favour of the 5th respondent, the petitioners are constrained to file this Writ Petition. 3. The 4th respondent-Tahsildar filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ petition inter alia contending that the 5th respondent and his brother purchased the subject property from Kasiraju Ramachandra Anjaneya Sarma and leased out the subject property to father of the petitioners and taking advantage of the absence of the 5th respondent in the village, the petitioners misrepresented the facts and got their names mutated in revenue records. It is further contended that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, the 3rd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, after due verification of the documentary evidence filed by the petitioners and the 5th respondent and also the connected village records, cancelled the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioners and in the revision, the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector had confirmed the title of the 5th respondent in accordance with law, upon due verification of the documents relied on by both the parties and keeping in view the judgment delivered in O.S.No.162 of 2011. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 4. The unofficial respondent No.5 filed counter denying the averments of the petition inter-alia contending that, he along with his brother purchased the subject land from its lawful owner Sri Kasiraju Ramachandra Anjaneya Sarma and they leased out the same to the petitioners and left for Tenali on account of education of their children. It is further submitted that on coming to know that the petitioners taking advantage of their absence in the village, manipulated the records and obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds, he submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent, who, after affording reasonable opportunity to him as well as the petitioners, passed orders for cancellation of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds and aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred revision before the 2nd respondent and upon considering the documentary evidence filed by both the parties and keeping in view the judgment in O.S.No.162 of 2011, the 2nd respondent dismissed the said revision confirming the orders passed by the 3rd respondent. There is neither illegality nor infirmity in the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and there are no merits in the writ petition and the same has to be dismissed. 5. Heard Sri Ambati Sreekanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Penumaka Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 6. Sri Ambati Sreekanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration, would submit that, the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 did not provide for appeal remedy against issuance of pattadar pass books and Title deeds and the appeal provided under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ’the Act’) is only against the order of recording authority either making an amendment in the revenue records of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, but not against issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds under Section 6-A of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the orders in W.P.No.21689 of 1999, dated 24.07.2015 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, wherein it was held that remedy of appeal under Section 6-A of the Act is not available. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that even otherwise, as per Section 5(5) of the Act, the aggrieved party has to prefer appeal against the orders passed by the authorities under Section 5(3) within 60 days from the date of the order and that too in a prescribed format as envisaged under Rule-21 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules. In the case on hand, the 5th respondent did not prefer any appeal except submitting a representation in the year 2016 for cancellation of the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioners in 2003 i.e. to say 13 years after issuance. In the case on hand, the 5th respondent did not prefer any appeal except submitting a representation in the year 2016 for cancellation of the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioners in 2003 i.e. to say 13 years after issuance. However, the 3rd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer considered the said representation as an appeal, though not in a prescribed format, and passed orders dated 07.01.2016 cancelling the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners way back in 2003 in utter ignorance of the requirement of law that an appeal has to be preferred in a prescribed format within a period of 60 days and if the same is not filed within 60 days, an application to condone the delay setting forth the reasons for such delay has to be filed and until the delay is condoned the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot get jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Thus, the orders passed by the 3rd respondent treating the representation of the 5th respondent as an appeal and that too without there being any application to condone the delay is highly unsustainable and non-est in the eye of law. The learned counsel further submits that the 2nd respondent – Joint Collector did not consider the above aspects in right perspective and in a mechanical way dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners holding that in the suit filed by the petitioners the Civil Court confirmed the title of the 5th respondent and that the petitioners have obtained pattadar passbooks without having title/possession over the subject land. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition by setting aside the orders passed by the 3rd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer and the consequential orders passed by the 2nd respondent dated 11.12.2017. 7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue justified the impugned order contending that the appellate as well as revisional authorities, upon perusal of the material available on record besides considering the submissions made by respective parties, rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioners without having right, title and possession over the subject properties obtained pattadar passbook and title deeds. Thus, the orders so passed do not require any interference of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Thus, the orders so passed do not require any interference of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Sri Penumaka Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the 5th respondent, would submit that the 5th respondent along with his brothers purchased the subject land from Kasiraju Ramachandra Anjaneya Sarma and thereafter leased out the land to father of the petitioners and left the village for Tenali and Guntur Towns on account of education of their children and the petitioners taking advantage of their absence, got manipulated the revenue records and obtained pattadar passbooks and the 5th respondent having noticed the said fraud, preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent and the said appeal was allowed and the pattadar passbooks issued in the name of the petitioners were cancelled. It is further submitted that the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.162 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattrenapalli for permanent injunction against the District Collector, Guntur, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar, without adding the 5th respondent as a party and the said suit was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners failed to prove the validity of their pattadar pass books and title deeds. The learned counsel would further submit that, aggrieved by the orders passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioners preferred revision before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent, upon considering the material available on record, after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the judgment passed in O.S.No.162 of 2011 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, dismissed the said revision. There is neither illegality nor legal infirmity in the impugned orders passed by respondents 2 and 3 and they do not require interference of this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Perusal of the record discloses that the 5th respondent made a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur seeking cancellation of the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in the name of the petitioners. The pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioners in the year 2003, whereas the 5th respondent made representation in the year 2016, i.e. to say 13 years after the pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioners. The pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioners in the year 2003, whereas the 5th respondent made representation in the year 2016, i.e. to say 13 years after the pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioners. The orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in R.C.No.3624/205-A, dated 07.01.2016 states that the party aggrieved by the said orders can file an appeal before the Joint Collector, Guntur within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Hence, it is evident that the Revenue Divisional Officer treated the representation made by the 5th respondent as an appeal under section 5(5) of the Act and cancelled the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners. 10. In T.Rajeswari v. Joint Collector, SPSR Nellore District, 2015(6) ALT 339 , this Court held as follows: “As per the scheme of the Act, it is only the order, which was passed under Section 5(3) of the Act is appealable under Section 5(5) of the Act. In the absence of any order having been passed in the present case, there could not have been any appeal. The Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the appellate authority, while passing the order pursuant to the order of this Court, also did not verify as to what are the pending cases, and likewise the Joint Collector also did not make any efforts to set out the details. In other words, in the present case, there is no primary order and the appellate as well as the revisional orders are also bereft of any details. In such circumstances, both the orders i.e., appellate as well as revisional order cannot be sustained and required to be set aside and accordingly set aside.” As per the above observations it is evident that in the absence of any order having been passed under Section 5(3), there could not have been any appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. 11. A perusal of the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer makes it clear that on the representation made by the 5th respondent, the Tahsildar has recommended for cancellation of the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioners and the said report of the Tahsildar finds a place in the report of the RDO as reference No.6. 11. A perusal of the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer makes it clear that on the representation made by the 5th respondent, the Tahsildar has recommended for cancellation of the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the petitioners and the said report of the Tahsildar finds a place in the report of the RDO as reference No.6. Thus, except making recommendation, the 4th respondent Tahsildar did not pass any orders under Section 5(3) of the Act. Thus, without there being an order under Section 5(3) of the Act, the Revenue Divisional Officer has erroneously treated the representation of the 5th respondent as an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. 12. Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 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. 13. It is also relevant here to extract Rule-21 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989, which deals with appeals under Section 5(5) of the Act. 21.(1) An appeal against every order of the Mandal Revenue Officer either making an amendment in the Record of Rights or refusing to make such amendment shall lie under sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act, to the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector/Assistant Collector or such authority as may be notified by the Commissioner. (2) Every appeal referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be in writing and shall set forth concisely the grounds thereof within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against. 14. (2) Every appeal referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be in writing and shall set forth concisely the grounds thereof within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against. 14. A conjoint reading of Section 5(5) of the Act and Rule 21(2) of the Rules shows that an appeal against every order either making an amendment or refusing to make such an amendment in record of rights has to be filed within 60 days from the date of the said order and it must be filed in a prescribed format accompanied by copy of the order appealed against. 15. In the decision in Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy vs. Joint Collector, Cuddpah, 2009(1)ALD 248 this Court held as follows: “5. 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. 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.” As per the above observations, when the appeal was not filed in the prescribed form and within the time stipulated and without any delay condonation petition, the authorities cannot entertain the same treating the same as appeal. 16. 16. In the case on hand, in respect of pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners in the year 2003, the 5th respondent filed a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer in the year 2016 and the said representation was treated as an appeal under Section 5(5) of the AP ROR Act and the RDO and cancelled the pattadar pass books so granted in favour of the petitioners. The orders passed by the RDO nowhere states that the 5th respondent has filed a petition to condone the delay and having been satisfied with the reasons afforded therein the said delay was condoned. Further, it is nobody’s case that any delay condonation has been filed. Thus, it is evident that the 5th respondent did not prefer an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act in the prescribed form more over within the stipulated time. Though the RDO cannot entertain his appellate powers unless there being an order under section 5(3) of the Act and unless an appeal within the period of limitation and filed following the procedure prescribed by Rule 21 of the Rules; treating the representation as an appeal dealt with the same and thus the orders passed by the RDO is without jurisdiction and consequently the orders passed by the 2nd respondent upholding the said orders also cannot be sustained. 17. Regarding maintainability of appeal or revision as against issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds is concerned, A division bench of this Court in Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, held that the appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer is not maintainable against mere issuance of pattadar pass book and title deeds under Section 6-A of the Act. In paras 24 and 25, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “Sections 5-B and 6-A are introduced through Amendment Act 9 of 1994. Through the amendment, remedy of appeal against regularization order under Section 5-A of the Act and provision for issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act is enacted. Sub-section (3) of Section 6-A provides for correction of entries in the PPB/TD by the Mandal Revenue Officer either suo motu or on an application. Through the amendment, remedy of appeal against regularization order under Section 5-A of the Act and provision for issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of the Act is enacted. Sub-section (3) of Section 6-A provides for correction of entries in the PPB/TD by the Mandal Revenue Officer either suo motu or on an application. As already noticed, the record-of-rights is prepared under Section 3 of the Act, updated/ maintained under Sections 4, 5 and also as a consequence of regularization under Section 5-A of the Act. Issuance of PPB is covered by Section 6-A of the Act. The PPB is nothing but a copy or reflection of entries in the record of rights prepared or maintained at one or the other stages under the Act as stated above. The PPB/TD is maintained and issued in Form No. 14-C of the Rules. PPB/TD contains the entries as borne out by 1-B Register. With the issue of pass book to any person whose name in the applicable column is recorded in record of rights, it cannot be said such issuance adversely affects any person. A person is certainly aggrieved by illegal preparation of record of rights and against such illegal preparation the remedy is provided under Section 3(3) of the Act. Likewise, against illegal or erroneous updation of record of rights under Sections 4 and 5 or regularization under Section 5-A of the Act, the remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) or Section 5-B respectively is available to an aggrieved party. On the other hand, Section 6-A(3) provides for correction of erroneous entries in PPB/TD issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The reason for not providing any appeal against the issuance of PPB/TD is manifest from the Scheme of the Act viz., that the issuance of TD/PPB does not by itself adversely affect the substantive right of a person, who claims or has a right in the property for which PPB is issued. In other words, the issuance of PPB/TD is a consequential act and entries in PPB/TD are mere reflection of entries of 1-B Register. Mere filing of appeal against issuance of pattadar pass book which is only a copy of 1-B register is not an efficacious remedy under the scheme of the Act.” As per the above observations, Issuance of PPB is covered by Section 6-A of the Act. Mere filing of appeal against issuance of pattadar pass book which is only a copy of 1-B register is not an efficacious remedy under the scheme of the Act.” As per the above observations, Issuance of PPB is covered by Section 6-A of the Act. Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed contain the entries as borne out by 1-B Register. With the issue of pass book to any person whose name in the applicable column is recorded in record of rights, it cannot be said such issuance adversely affects any person and hence no appeal is provided against mere issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. 18. This Court in Kuruva Hanumanthamma vs. State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, 2018(1) ALD 290 held at paras- 24, 25, 27 and 35 as follows: “24. The scheme of the Act is considered by the Full Bench in Santosh Verma v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and keeping in view the opinion of Full Bench, this Court examines point No. 2. The proviso to subsection (2) of Section 6-A of the Act regulates the jurisdiction of Recording Authority or Mandal Revenue Officer in issuing PPP/TD, by stipulating that PPP/TD shall not be issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer unless the record of rights have been brought up to date (emphasis added). The words have been brought up to date, in sub-section (2) of Section 6-A, are related to or appreciated in the same way the words amendment and updating of record of rights used in Section 5 of the Act. 25. Therefore, If PPP/TD is issued in conformity with the requirement of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the Act, then there is no difficulty in holding that a person aggrieved by the updation and resulting in issuance of PPP, works out the remedy of appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Act as decided by Ratnamma case. Sub-section (3) of Section 6-A authorizes the Mandal Revenue Officer to correct the entries in the PPP/TD, and scope of sub-section 3 is limited to correction of errors of entries and nothing more. Therefore by interpreting Section 6-A (2) of the Act, this Court holds that the recording authority in cases coming under Section 5 of the Act has jurisdiction to issue PPP/TD after the record is updated or amended. Therefore by interpreting Section 6-A (2) of the Act, this Court holds that the recording authority in cases coming under Section 5 of the Act has jurisdiction to issue PPP/TD after the record is updated or amended. As in the present case, PPP/TD is issued, independent of or de hors the entries made in record of rights maintained under 1-B, then what is the remedy available to an aggrieved party is the moot point for consideration of this Court. Section 9 reads as follows: 9. Revision:--The Collector may either suo motu or on an application made to him, call for and examine the record of any Recording Authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5-A or 5-B, in respect of any record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof and if it appears to the Collector that any such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly: Provided that no such order adversely affecting any person shall be passed under this Section unless he had an opportunity of making a representation. * * * * * * * “27. The Collector is given power of entertaining revision either suo motu or on an application filed by an aggrieved party. The Collector in a pending revision is entitled to call for and examine the record of order under revision viz. from (a) recording authority, Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Divisional Officer under Sections 3, 5, 5A or 5B in respect of any record of right prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision taken, order passed or proceedings made in respect thereof. (b) The Collector has jurisdiction to modify, annul, reverse or remit for reconsideration of a decision, order or proceedings made in respect of record of rights. From plain construction of Section 9, this Court is of the view that the revisional jurisdiction of Collector embraces different situations warranting interference by him and thus ensures maintenance, preparation or continuation of record of rights on the touch stone of the entries being regular, correct, legal or propriety. From plain construction of Section 9, this Court is of the view that the revisional jurisdiction of Collector embraces different situations warranting interference by him and thus ensures maintenance, preparation or continuation of record of rights on the touch stone of the entries being regular, correct, legal or propriety. I would refer to Ramanatha Aiyers Law Laxicon and Websters Dictionary for excerpting the meaning of the words viz. Regularity; correctness; legality and propriety. *** 35. Having regard to the scope of Section 9 of the Act, a person, if aggrieved against an entry made or maintained in record of rights or continued to be maintained by recording authority can file revision under Section 9 of the Act. Likewise on the same analogy the aggrieved person can file revision against the issuance of PPP/TD. The Collector is obliged by the revisional jurisdiction he enjoys to examine all the aspects namely regularity, correctness, legality or propriety in the issue of PPP/TD and pass orders on the entries in record of rights and also on the legality or otherwise of PPP/TD against which revision is made before him. This Court is of the view that by adopting the above interpretation to Section 9 and Section 6-A of the Act before a litigant is compelled to work out the remedies under Section 8 of the Act, can avail the remedy within the framework of the Act by filing revision and obtain orders in this behalf. The point is answered by holding that in cases where the PPP/TD is issued either in breach of sub-section (2) of Section 6-A of the Act or otherwise particularly without an order or proceeding under Section 5 of the Act, an aggrieved party is not without remedy and legal wrong can be canvassed by fling revision under Section 9 of the Act. The remedy available under Section 8 of the Act is always independent and a party if advised, whether before filing the revision or after awaiting the outcome of revision, can work out the remedy of establishing title etc. before the competent civil Court. The other remedies referred in Ratnamma case are to be understood as held in this order.” In view of the observations made in the above decision, if a person is aggrieved by issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, he can file a revision under Section 9 of the Act. 19. before the competent civil Court. The other remedies referred in Ratnamma case are to be understood as held in this order.” In view of the observations made in the above decision, if a person is aggrieved by issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, he can file a revision under Section 9 of the Act. 19. Thus, the 5th respondent has to prefer a revision under Section 9 of the Act, but not an appeal under section 5(5) of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside and so also the orders passed by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector confirming the said orders cannot sustain. 20. In the instant case both the parties are claiming title to the subject land by way of purchase from one Kasiraju Ramachandra Anjaneya Sarma. In fact, there is a serious dispute regarding title to the property, in such a case, the 2nd and 3rd respondents should have relegated the parties to the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief. 21. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the orders passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.3624/2015-A, dated 07.01.2016 and also the orders passed by the 2nd respondent- Joint Collector, Guntur in D.Dis.No.1003/2016-D5, dated 11.12.2017. The parties are free to agitate their rights before the Civil Court to clear cloud over their title to the subject property and subject to the outcome of the civil litigation, they may file appropriate application to the revenue authorities seeking to undertake consequential steps. 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.