Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 319 (AP)

Peela Krishna Appa Rao v. State Of AP

2023-02-06

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2023
ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the petitioners invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….issue appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in D.Dis.No.4725/2015/C, dated 12.07.2017 entertaining the appeal by the 5th respondent against the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deed issued in favour of the petitioners relating to the property in Survey Nos.127, 128, 130/1 and 130/2 of Ramavaram village of Anandapuram Mandal of Visakhapatnam District, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective share of property in the said survey nos. by declaring the orders of the 3rd respondent as illegal…..” 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are owners and possessors of the property in Survey Nos.126, 127, 128, 130/1 and 130/2 of Ramavaram village of Anandapuram Mandal of Visakhapatnam District, having purchased the said property under various registered sale deeds of the year 1995 executed by Pakalapati Bangarraju and his family members and ever since they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. After due enquiry, the revenue authority mutated the names of the petitioners in revenue records and issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioners in the year 1995. After due enquiry, the revenue authority mutated the names of the petitioners in revenue records and issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioners in the year 1995. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 5th respondent, without there being any application as required under law for enquiry or alter the entries made in revenue record in his favour, filed an appeal in the year 2015 before the 3rd respondent under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 for cancellation of the pattadar pass books and title deeds of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.95.85 cents in Survey Nos.127, 128, 130/1 and 130/2 of Ramavaram Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District issued in favour of the petitioners in 1995, without there being any application for condonation of delay and also any explanation for delay, contending that the properties originally belong to Velugoti Rajagopal Krishna Yachendra, the Maharaja of Venkatagiri and in the partition among the sons of Maharaja, the subject properties fell to the share of 5th respondent’s father Navaneetha Yachendra and there was partition of the properties among the Navaneetha Yachendra and his sons by way of registered partition deed and the subject property is the joint family property of sons of Navaneetha Yachendra i.e. the 5th respondent and his brothers. The petitioners filed their objections contending that they are the bona fide purchasers of the property for value and that the appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act for cancellation of pattadar passbooks and title deed is not maintainable and the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal with regard to the entries made in revenue record and the aggrieved person has to approach the primary authority-4th respondent under Section 3 of the Act to conduct an enquiry with regard to the entries already made. However, without considering the objections, the 3rd respondent has entertained the appeal and cancelled the pass books issued in favour of the petitioners are cancelled and further holding that an extent of Ac.48-55 cents in Survey No.130/1 shall be treated as Government land and directed the 4th respondent-Tahsildar to take possession of the same and the 3rd respondent further held that so far as the balance land of an extent of Ac.47-34 cents in Survey Nos.126, 127, 128 and 130/2, the passbooks issued are cancelled and direted the 4th respondent to change the relevant entries in ROR, 1B register and intimate to the registering authority not to entertain any registrations, while observing that the authority is not able to decide the title of these lands as it involves multiple complexity and both parties are directed to approach the civil Court. It is the further case of the petitioners that feeling aggrieved by the orders of the 3rd respondent, the 6th respondent filed revision petition Nos.27 & 28 of 2017 before the 2nd respondent and the petitioners filed Revision Petition No.25 of 2017 and the revisions are pending. Since the orders passed by the 3rd respondent is without jurisdiction and pursuant to the same, the 4th respondent is now taking steps to implement those directions, the petitioners filed this writ petition questioning the orders of the 3rd respondent dated 02.07.2017. 3. The 4th respondent-Tahsildar filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the petition, inter alia contending that, the village Ramavaram in erstwhile Bheemunipatnam Taluq (presently in Anandapuram Mandal) was taken over under the provisions of Estate Abolition Act,1948 along with other villages of Vizianagaram Estate and after abolition, regular survey and settlement operations were conducted and they were completed before the year 1958 wherein the Settlement Authorities have entertained all the claims and determined the new rights under Estate Abolition Act,1948 and granted settlement pattas to all the eligible persons and prepared settlement records. As per the Settlement Fair Adangal, the land in Survey No.126 an extent of Ac.14.35 cents, an extent of Ac.13-98 cents in Survey No.128 and an extent of Ac.60-00 cents in Survey No.130 are classified as Gayalu and as such, the Government only has absolute rights over the said land and it is found that the entry Gayalu is rounded off with the name of Chelikuri Vengala Rao, which was also rounded off and noted the name of Pakalapati Byragiraju and similar set of corrections were also mentioned for the above lands of Ramavaram village. It is further submitted that the then Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam allowed the Revision Petition No.86 of 1965 vide orders dated 20.07.1965 allowing the claim of the revision petitioner Sri Chelikuri Vengala Rao for issuance of ryotwari patta in respect of the lands in Survey Nos.126 and 128-A of Ramavaram village of Anandapuram Mandal, while disallowing his claim in respect of the land in Survey No.130/2 of Ramavaram Village and as per the said order Sri Chelikuri Vengala Rao is the actual pattadar. It is not known as to how the name of Pakalapati Byragiraju was incorporated in the records and how his son Pakalapati Satyanarayana Raju executed the documents. The incorporation of the name of Pakalapati Byragiraju is not supported by any order of the statutory authority. It is further submitted that in the year 2011, considering the reports submitted by the Tahsildar, Anandapuram and Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam that the land in question originally stood classified as AWD and subsequently declared as Zeroyathi land as per the orders of the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam vide RP.No.86/65, dated 20.07.1965, the then District Collector, Visakhapatnam on the application filed by one J.M.M.Choudary vide D.Dis.No.3681/2007/e1, dated 18.02.2011, has issued orders withdrawing the lands covered by Survey No.126 of Ramavaram village of Anandapuram Mandal from the purview of Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908. While the matter stood thus, the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Appellate Authority(ROR), Visakhapatnam on the Appeal petition filed under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, by the 5th respondent, cancelled all the pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued for the lands covered under Survey Nos.126,127,128 and 130 and also to file complaint for tampering the records pertaining to entries in respect of the records and accordingly the then Tahsildar, Anandapuram filed a complaint and the same was taken up for investigation vide Crime No.137 of 2017 under Sections 418, 420, 466, 468, 467, 465, 204, 409, 471, 120(B) IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Land Grabbing Act, 1982. As seen from the records available, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) complaint was filed by Sri P.Manohara Rao of Hyderabad, stating that, how pattadar Pass books were issued and mutation was carried out in the name of Sri peela Govinda Satyanarayana and his family members, without establishing the link from the original SFA pattadars and accordingly a detailed report was submitted to the SIT authorities by the then Tahsildar, Anandapuram. It is further submitted that in view of the above discrepancies and due to non establishment of correct title of the land from the petitioners in the above mentioned Settlement Order, the title of the land is still a disputed question and the petitioners did not submit any relevant documents establishing the link from the actual pattadar. The appellate authority & Revenue Divisional , Visakhapatnam has examined the grounds of appeal and objections filed by the petitioners in detail and rightly issued the impugned orders and in pursuance thereof, the then Tahsildar, Anandapuram has incorporated necessary changes in the revenue records. As the petitioners have filed revision petition and the same is pending and as there are disputed questions of fact, the writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, prayed to vacate the interim directions dated 08.02.2019 and to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The 5th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the petition, inter alia contending that the writ petition having been filed with an unexplained inordinate delay of 19 month from the date of passing the impugned orders is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners, who have taken recourse to the alternative efficacious remedy of preferring revision under Section 9 of the Act against the impugned orders, are restrained from invoking the writ jurisdiction. Further, the documents on which the petitioners placed reliance to establish their title are dubious and lacks clarity regarding their title over the property and hence the petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition. It is further submitted that, in the family partition, the subject property was allotted to father and mother of the 5th respondent to be enjoyed by them during their lifetime without any right of alienation and after their lifetime it would devolved on their there sons equally and consequent to the death of father and mother of the 5th respondent, the subject property devolved upon the 5th respondent and his brothers. The Old RSR discloses the names of three sons and father of the 5th respondent and hence it is the absolute property of Velugoti family. It is further submitted that when the 5th respondent enquired, it came to light that the then Tahsildar issued pattadar passbooks to the writ petitioners and hence the 5th respondent preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The delay occurred is only in filing appeal before the 3rd respondent is only due to the fraud played by the writ petitioners on the 5th respondent. It is further submitted that the subject land is not a Government property and the 2nd respondent erred in giving a finding that the subject property is a government land, beyond the scope of appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P.R.O.R.Act. It is further submitted that since there is abnormal unexplained delay in filing the writ petition and as the petitioners have already taken recourse to alternative efficacious remedy of preferring appeal before the competent authority, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The petitioners filed common reply to the counter affidavits filed by the respondent Nos. It is further submitted that since there is abnormal unexplained delay in filing the writ petition and as the petitioners have already taken recourse to alternative efficacious remedy of preferring appeal before the competent authority, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The petitioners filed common reply to the counter affidavits filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit further submitted that for the last 5 to 6 decades, the subject property remained with private persons and revenue officials have never made any claim regarding the rights or title over the subject land and moreover the revenue authorities after conducting enquiries issued pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioners and if at all the Government wishes to claim title over the property, the remedy is to file a civil suit claiming rights over the property and thus the 3rd respondent had exceeded jurisdiction in holding that the property is a government land. It is further submitted that availability of alternative remedy is not a bar when there is violation of fundamental rights or when there is deviation in statutory procedure or when a public body acted without or in excess of its authority. The allegations of fraud is not only to be pleaded but also to be proved. Therefore, in the absence of proof to show that the petitioners committed fraud, the allegations of fraud made by the 4th respondent are only to cause loss to the petitioners with a mala fide intention. It is further submitted that the 5th respondent never took the plea of fraud and only to circumvent the inordinate delay in preferring the appeal before the 3rd respondent, a mere allegation of fraud is made, but failed to prove it beyond doubt by adducing cogent evidence. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. 6. Heard Smt. S.Pranathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General and Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for unofficial 5th respondent. 7. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. 6. Heard Smt. S.Pranathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General and Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for unofficial 5th respondent. 7. Smt. S.Pranathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners and others have purchased the properties and later in the partition the subject properties fell to the share of the petitioners and pursuant to their applications, the 4th respondent-Tahsildar after due enquiry issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioners way back in the year 1997 and fresh pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioners in the year 2007 and names of the petitioners were mutated in revenue records in the year 2009 itself. It is further submitted that the 5th respondent after lapse of nearly 18 years from the date of issuance of pattadar passbooks in favour of the petitioners has filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P.Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 before the 3rd respondent for cancellation of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds. It is further submitted that the Act nowhere provides for an appeal against issuance of the pattadar passbooks and title deeds, since the same is only a reflection of the entries made in the revenue records and hence the appeal filed by the 5th respondent is not maintainable. It is further submitted that after long lapse of 18 years, an appeal cannot be entertained by the 3rd respondent. Section 5 of the Act stipulates that an appeal has to be preferred within 60 days and if filed beyond 60 days, a petition seeking condonation of delay has to be filed and until the delay is condoned, the 3rd respondent cannot entertain the appeal. It is further submitted that appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act is provided only against the orders passed by the Primary Authority under Section 5(3) of the Act and in the instant case there is no such order and hence the 3rd respondent is not entitled to entertain the appeal. It is further submitted that appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act is provided only against the orders passed by the Primary Authority under Section 5(3) of the Act and in the instant case there is no such order and hence the 3rd respondent is not entitled to entertain the appeal. However, the 3rd respondent has entertained the appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act ignoring the fundamental principles of law that for preferring an appeal there must be an order passed under section 5(3) of the Act by the Primary authority(R4) and that the said appeal is filed with inordinate delay of 18 years from the date of issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioners. The learned counsel would further submit that if at all the 5th respondent has grievance regarding issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the petitioners, he has to file a petition before the Primary authority (R4) and in case the Primary Authority rejects his claim, then he is entitled to prefer appeal before the appellate authority (R3). Though specific objections were made by the petitioners, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned orders in utter ignorance of the fundamental principles of law and hence the same is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel would further submit that the 3rd respondent even went to the extent of holding that an extent of Ac.48-55 cents of land situated in Survey No.130/1 is a Government land and the 4th respondent is directed to take possession of the same. Thus, it is evident that the 3rd respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction in declaring part of the land as Government land and the only remedy available to the Government is to get the land declared as Government land by filing a civil suit before the competent civil Court but not in the proceedings initiated under Section 5(5) of the A.P.R.O.R.Act. Thus, it is evident that the 3rd respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction in declaring part of the land as Government land and the only remedy available to the Government is to get the land declared as Government land by filing a civil suit before the competent civil Court but not in the proceedings initiated under Section 5(5) of the A.P.R.O.R.Act. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent having observed in the impugned order that, as both the parties failed to prove their clear title and possession over the property and in view of suspicious entries pertains to the names/title holders in 10(1) and SFA in respect of balance extent of Ac.47-34 cents and having directed both the parties are directed to approach the Civil Court for confirmation of their title, ought not to have cancelled the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners and ought not have directed the Tahsildar to take other consequential steps. The learned counsel would further submit that the impugned order are ex facie illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and beyond the power and authority conferred on him by the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act and hence the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Ratnamma v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur District and others, 2015(5) ALT 228 (D.B.), Smt. P.Ghousia Begum and others v. Basireddy Rukminamma and others, 2018(5) ALT 148 (D.B.). 8. The learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General supported the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent and submitted that the said orders came to be passed after giving fair and reasonable opportunity to both the parties and there is neither illegality or irregularity or infirmity in the said order and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the 5th respondent would submit that the properties were the ancestral properties of the 5th respondent and in the partition between father of the 5th respondent and his sons, the schedule properties fell to the share of father and mother of the 5th respondent for their life and after their lifetime the properties devolved upon the three sons. It is further submitted that the old RSR discloses the names of the 5th respondent and his two brothers along with his father as absolute owners of the property. It is further submitted that the delay in preferring in appeal is only due to the fraud played on the 5th respondent by the petitioners. The learned counsel would further submit that the writ petitioners have filed revision before the Joint Collector under Section 9 of the Act questioning the impugned orders and the same is pending adjudication and hence this writ petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that as the petitioners failed to prove their right and title over the property traceable from the holder of the property found place in the Settlement Fair Adangal, the 3rd respondent has rightly set aside the pattadar pass books and title deeds giving follow up consequential directions to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar. However, the 3rd respondent erred in giving a finding that the petition schedule property is a Government land, since it is beyond the scope of his powers and beyond the scope of the appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P.R.O.R. Act. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 10. In reply to the contention regarding maintainability, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the revision petitions filed under Section 9 of the Act have been withdrawn subsequent to filing of this writ petition and hence this writ petition is maintainable. 11. Perusal of the record discloses that the 5th respondent made a representation to the 3rd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer 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 1995, whereas the 5th respondent made representation in the year 2015, i.e. to say 20 years after the pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioners. 12. 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. 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. 13. A perusal of the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer makes it clear that the appeal was filed seeking cancellation of pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners, not questioning the orders passed under section 5(3) of the Act by 4th respondent Tahsildar. Thus, without there being an order under Section 5(3) of the Act, the Revenue Divisional Officer has erroneously entertained the appeal filed by the 5th respondent under Section 5(5) of the Act. 14. 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. 15. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 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. 18. In the case on hand, in respect of pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners in the year 1995, the 5th respondent filed an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer in the year 2015 without any application to condone the delay, inspite of it, the Revenue Divisional Officer 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. Further, it is nobody’s case that any delay condonation has been filed. Thus, it is evident that the 5th respondent did not file any delay condonation application. Though the 3rd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer 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, the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, has entertained the appeal and passed the impugned orders. Thus the orders passed by the 3rd respondent- Revenue Divisional officer is without jurisdiction and the said orders also cannot be sustained. 19. 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. 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. 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. 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. 20. 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. 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. 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. (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. 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 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. 21. 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. 22. Regarding maintainability of this writ petition, it is an established principle of law that mere availability of alternative efficacious remedy would not oust the writ jurisdiction. It is also an established principle of law that remedy of appeal and also the writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised simultaneously. In the instant writ petition, no doubt, the petitioners themselves stated in the writ affidavit that they have preferred revisions against the impugned orders. However, during the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that those revisions have been withdrawn subsequent to filing of the writ petition. In view of the same, the contention of the learned counsel for the 5th respondent regarding maintainability is not tenable. 23. In the instant case both the parties are claiming title to the subject land. The petitioners are claiming title by way of purchase, whereas the 5th respondent set up title to the subject properties by way of succession from his ancestors. Further, the 3rd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, in the impugned order upon observing that there involves multiple complexity of various aspects regarding Hindu Succession Act and since both the parties failed to prove their clear title, possession over the property and further in view of the suspicious nature of entries, directed both the parties to approach the Civil Court for confirmation of their title. The 3rd Respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, having observed so, ought not to have cancelled the Pattadar Pass books and Title deeds issued in favour of the petitioners and he ought to have directed the parties to file appropriate applications for mutation of the revenue records subject to outcome of the civil suit if any instituted by them. 24. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional officer, Visakhapatnam in D.Dis.No.4725/2015 C, dated 12.07.2017. 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.