JUDGMENT: A.V. Sesha Sai, J. 1. Heard Sri Sriman, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M. Karibasaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner, and Sri G. L. Narasimha Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Assignment, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 6, and perused the material available on record. 2. Respondent No.6 in W.P. No.11746 of 2021 is the appellant in the present appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. 3. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the learned single Judge, allowing the said writ petition, filed by respondent No.1 herein. 4. By way of the order impugned in the appeal, the learned single Judge had set aside the order dated 24.04.2021 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant herein. Appellant herein submitted a representation/application to the Tahsildar, Atmakuru on 05.06.2020 stating that irregular entries were made in the revenue records in favour of respondent No.1 herein with regard to the subject property of the writ petition. 5. The Tahsildar, Atmakuru, vide endorsement dated 30.06.2020, asked the appellant herein to approach the competent Court for redressal of his grievance. As against the said endorsement, the appellant herein filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuramu and the R.D.O. passed an order on 24.04.2021, holding that the pattadar passbook issued in favour of respondent No.1 herein by the Tahsildar, Atmakur Mandal, Ananthapuramu District was without any basis or any documentary evidence and consequently, held that the entries made in the pattadar passbook in favour of respondent No.1 herein vide Khata No.198 of B. Yaleru Village for an extent of Ac.3-23 cents are liable for deletion. 6. In the above background, respondent No.1 herein approached this Court by way of W.P. No.11746 of 2021, questioning the order passed by the R.D.O. on 24.04.2021, principally contending that the R.D.O. ought not to have entertained the appeal since such appeal would not be maintainable in the absence of any order, either making an amendment in the Record of Rights or refusing to make amendment which condition would be condition precedent for entertaining an appeal under sub-Section (5) of Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act”). 7. 7. The learned single Judge, by placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the composite High Court of A.P. in the case of Ratnamma vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, (2015) 5 ALT 228 allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the R.D.O. Hence, the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by respondent No.6 in the writ petition. 8. According to Sri Sriman, the order passed by the learned single Judge is erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Act. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the learned single Judge grossly erred in allowing the writ petition on the ground of jurisdiction and that having regard to the reasons mentioned in the order impugned in the writ petition, the learned single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the learned single Judge ought to have seen that the appeal filed by the appellant herein is maintainable under Section 5B of the Act. 9. On the contrary, Sri M. Karibasaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner, and Sri G. L. Narasimha Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Assignment, contend that there is absolutely no error nor there exists any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge and in the absence of the same, the order under appeal is not amenable for any correction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 10. In the above background, now the issues which this Court is called upon to address are:- “(1) Whether the order passed by the learned single Judge, which is impugned in this appeal, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, is sustainable and tenable? And (2) Whether the order under appeal warrants interference of this court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent?” 11. In order to resolve the issues in the present Letters Patent Appeal, it would be appropriate and apposite to refer to certain provisions of the Act. Section 3 of the Act deals with the preparation and updating of Record of Rights in all lands and Section 4 of the Act deals with the acquisition of rights to be intimated. Section 5 of the Act deals with the amendment and updating of Record of Rights. Section 3 of the Act deals with the preparation and updating of Record of Rights in all lands and Section 4 of the Act deals with the acquisition of rights to be intimated. Section 5 of the Act deals with the amendment and updating of Record of Rights. Section 5 of the Act, which is germane for the case on hand, reads as under:- “5. Amendment and updating of Record of Rights:- (1) On receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence therefor and shall carryout the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination: Provided that no order refusing to make an amendment in accordance with the intimation shall be passed unless the person making such intimation has been given an opportunity of making his representation in that behalf. [Provided further that when the registration is approved by the Registering Officer, the name of the claimant shall be mutated in lieu of name of the executants on real time basis provisionally in electronically maintained data duly assigning notional sub-division number as may be prescribed pending enquiry by the Tahsildar: Provided also that the provisional mutation shall be confirmed by the Tahsildar electronically by following due procedure under sub-section (3) within thirty days of the registration. The aggrieved person may file an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer within a period of fifteen days from the date of order of the Tahsildar and decision of the appellate authority thereon shall subject to the provisions of Section 9 be, final.]. (2) Where the Mandal Revenue Officer has reason to believe that an acquisition of any right of a description to which Section 4 applies has taken place and of which an intimation has not been made to him under that Section and where he considers that an amendment has to be effected in the record of rights, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall carry out the said amendment in the record of rights. (3)The Mandal Revenue Officer shall, before carrying out any amendment in the record of rights under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) issue a notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or affected thereby to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out. A copy of the amendment and the notice aforesaid shall also be published in such manner as may be prescribed. The Mandal Revenue Officer shall consider every objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry as may be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as he deems fit. (4) Every order passed under this section shall be communicated the person concerned. (5) 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. (6) The Mandal Revenue Officer shall have the power to correct clerical errors, if any, in the Pass Books.…….” 12. A plain reading of sub-Section (5) of Section 5 of the Act demonstrates, in clear terms, that only against an order of the Tahsildar, either making an amendment in the Record of Rights or refusing to make such an amendment, is appealable before the Revenue Divisional Officer. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the composite High Court of A.P. in the case of Ratnamma vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (1 cited supra). In the said judgment, the Division Bench of the composite High Court of A.P., while dealing with Section 5 of the Act, held as follows:- “From a bare reading of Section 5(5) of the Act, it can be held that against every order of recording authority either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal to the RDO, is provided within the time stipulated in the Section. Under the Act, making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make amendment in record of rights is a crucial stage and a substantive decision rendered by the recording authority. Therefore, right of appeal is provided against such decisions. Likewise, from the reading of Section 5(5) of the Act, it cannot be construed that Section 5(5) provides remedy of appeal against orders under Section 6-A of the Act. Issuance of PPB/TD or making entries therein is always a step consequential to the record of rights prepared. Therefore the plain reading of Section 5(5) makes it clear that appeal against order under Section 6-A is not maintainable.” 13. In the case on hand, the endorsement dated 30.06.2020 issued by the Tahsildar is admittedly neither an order, making an amendment nor an order, refusing to make the amendment. In view of the law laid down by the composite High Court of A.P. in the above referred judgment and having regard to the provisions of sub-Section(5) of Section 5 of the Act, in the considered opinion of this Court, the R.D.O. grossly erred in passing the order impugned in the writ petition. Though an effort is made by the learned counsel for the appellant in the direction of justifying the filing of appeal under Section 5B of the Act, a plain reading of the said provision of law would indicate that only against an order passed under sub-Section (4) of Section 5-A of the Act, an appeal would lie and the same is not the contingency in the case on hand, as such, the contention advanced by the learned counsel to the said effect is liable to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected. 14. In view of the reasons assigned by the learned single Judge in the impugned order and having regard to the findings recorded supra, this Court is not inclined to meddle with the order passed by the learned single Judge. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Appeal shall stand closed.