JUDGMENT : (R. Raghunandan Rao, J.) Heard Sri Y.V. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents 1 to 6 and Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7. 2. The names of the appellants are said to have been entered in the revenue records in respect of Ac.0.30 cents of land in Sy.No.358 of 2015 of Nagavaram Village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The 7th respondent, being aggrieved by the entering of the names of the appellants, had approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anakapalli, under Section 5(5) of the A.P Records of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for correction of the entries. The appellants, had opposed the said appeal on the ground that an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act would only be available against an order passed by the Tahsildar whereas the present appeal was filed against the entries made in the revenue records and not against any specific order of the Tahsildar. The 5th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order dated 31.03.2022 in Rc.No.1198/2020/D, allowing the appeal of the 7th respondent with a direction to the Tahsildar to take action accordingly. The Revenue Divisional Officer had relied upon the partition decree dated 19.01.2010 in O.S.No.27 of 2003 and subsequent sale deeds for order in such a correction. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants moved this Court, by way of W.P.No.14013 of 2022 contending that such an appeal was not maintainable and as such, the Revenue Divisional Officer ought not to have heard the appeal or passed the impugned order. 4. The 7th respondent contended that the revenue entries in relation to the land in question were in the name of the 7th respondent, pursuant to the execution of a sale deed dated 13.06.2005, and that the entries were modified in favour of the appellants, behind the back of the 7th respondent, and as such, the 7th respondent had questioned the entries made by the Tahsildar. The 7th respondent contended that in such circumstances, correction of entries by the 5th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer cannot be treated as irregular nor there was any procedural irregularity. 5. The 7th respondent contended that in such circumstances, correction of entries by the 5th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer cannot be treated as irregular nor there was any procedural irregularity. 5. The learned single judge after considering both the rival submissions had held that the appellants had an alternative remedy of approaching the District Collector under Section 9 of the Act which provides for revision of all the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5 of the Act and had permitted the appellants to file a revision within a stipulated time after granting an order of status quo till such appeal is filed. 6. Aggrieved by this order, dated 06.12.2023, the appellants have approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal. 7. At the outset it is clarified that this Court is not going into the merits of the case and it is only on the question of the procedure that needs to be followed in such cases. 8. The scheme of the Act, in recording entries in the revenue records is as follows: Under Section 3(1) of the Act, the concerned revenue authorities, immediately after the commencement of the Act, were to prepare a record of rights over the land in every village under the jurisdiction of that authority. This record of rights was to contain particulars such as, names of the persons interested in the land, the nature and extent of their respective rights, the rent, revenue or other amounts payable by such persons etc. Any person affected by any entry made under Section 3(1) of the Act could approach the authority named under the rules, within a period of one year from the date of notification of the said record for rectifications of the entries. 9. After the initial record had been prepared, further changes in the records can be carried out under Section 4 and 5 of the Act. Under Section 4 of the Act, any person acquiring any right as owner, pattadar and mortagagee, occupant or tenant of a land by virtue of any of the methods set out in Section 4 could apply in writing to the Tahsildar, within 60 days of acquisition of such right, in accordance with the procedure set out in the rules made under the Act. On receipt of such request, the Tahsildar, was to amend the record of rights, under Section 5 of the Act, after due notice and intimation to the affected parties. In the event of the Tahsildar forming an opinion, that such request would have to be refused, the Tahsildar would have to transmit all the documents along with the recommendations of the Tahsildar to the Revenue Divisional Officer to decide whether the request should be accepted or refused. This decision under Section 5(1) and 5(2) of the Act can be appealed, under Section 5(4) of the Act, before the District Revenue Officer, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such order or amendment of the record of rights. It may also be noticed that this right of appeal had been contained, originally, in Section 5(5) of the Act, which has now been amended, with effect from 01.01.2022, whereby the right of appeal is provided under Section 5(4). Apart from this remedy against any change in the revenue records, Section 9 of the Act provides for a revision by the Collector either suo moto or on an application made to him to correct the decisions or the entries in the revenue record. 10. The rules made under this Act known as the A.P Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Rules, 1989 (herein after referred to as ‘Rules’) also follow the same procedure. The procedure to be followed for the initial preparation of the record of rights is contained from Rule 3 to Rule 14. Rectification of entries in the record of rights is set out in Rules 15 to 17. It may also be mentioned that the Rules 15 to 17 relate to the initial correction that can be sought under Section 3(3) of the Act and would not apply to any applications made under Section 4 of the Act. Rules 18 to 21 applied to applications made under Section 4 and the orders passed under Section 5 of the Act. Rule 22 provides for the procedure to be followed where change of record of rights is required on account of alienation or transfer made otherwise then by a registered document. 11. Rules 18 to 21 applied to applications made under Section 4 and the orders passed under Section 5 of the Act. Rule 22 provides for the procedure to be followed where change of record of rights is required on account of alienation or transfer made otherwise then by a registered document. 11. The procedure, as can be seen from the above provisions is that any person who acquires a right in property would have to approach the Tahsildar of the area for change of the revenue entries by producing supporting material to show that the applicant has obtained any right over a property. Any order accepting such change can be appealed against under Section 5(4) of the Act. The relevant provisions of Section 5 are extracted below: 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, otherwise than by a registered document, the Tahsidlar shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence thereof and shall carry out the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination. 12. A close reading of Section 5(4) of the Act would show that an appeal under Section 5(4) is maintainable against an order passed under subsection (1) or sub section 2(a) of the Act or an amendment made under sub section (3) of Section 5(3) of the Act. This would mean that an appeal can lie only against an order passed under sub section (1) or sub section 2(a) of Section 5. For the present purposes, sub section (3) of Section 5 may not be relevant. The language of Section 5(4) of the Act makes it clear that the appeal has to be against a specific order passed by the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer. In the absence of an order, there cannot be any appeal under Section 5(4) of the Act in relation to amendments carried out under Section 5(1) or 5(2)(a) of the Act. In the present case, the appeal is not filed against any specific order of the Tahsildar but against an entry which is in the revenue records. 13. In the absence of an order, there cannot be any appeal under Section 5(4) of the Act in relation to amendments carried out under Section 5(1) or 5(2)(a) of the Act. In the present case, the appeal is not filed against any specific order of the Tahsildar but against an entry which is in the revenue records. 13. A reading of Section 5(1) and 5(2)(a) read with Section 5(4) would indicate that there is no remedy available to a person if the entries in the revenue record are manipulated without any underlying order. However, there is a remedy available under Section 9 of the Act which 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, 5A or 5B, in respect of nay record of rights prepared or maintained to satisfy himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of nay 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.] 14. Under the above provisions, the Collector, either suo moto or an application can not only set aside any order passed by any of the Revenue authorities in the District but also correct any entry in the record of rights prepared or maintained by the authority concerned. In such a situation, the complaint of the 7th respondent that there has been an irregular change in the revenue records without any underlying order can be corrected by the Collector under Section 9 of the Act. 15. The appellants had also cited in judgments in Vutukuru Subba Rao and Others vs. State of A.P rep. by its Revenue Secretary and Others., 2014(5) ALT 733 and Katta Andamma and Others vs. Joint Collector, Warangal District and Others, 2017(2)ALT 313. These judgments are in line with the view taken by us and do not require any further elucidation. 16. The appellants had also cited in judgments in Vutukuru Subba Rao and Others vs. State of A.P rep. by its Revenue Secretary and Others., 2014(5) ALT 733 and Katta Andamma and Others vs. Joint Collector, Warangal District and Others, 2017(2)ALT 313. These judgments are in line with the view taken by us and do not require any further elucidation. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 31.03.2022, leaving it open to the 7th respondent to approach the Collector, under Section 9 of the Act, for rectification of entries and with a further direction to the concerned District Collector to consider and pass orders on the said application, after notice to the appellants, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In the meanwhile, status quo, as directed by the learned single judge in the final order in W.P.No.14013 of 2022 shall be maintained. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.