JUDGMENT- JUDGMENT : T.C.D. SEKHAR, J. 1. The present writ appeal is filed aggrieved by order dated 28.02.2025 passed in WP No.21817 of 2020. The appellant is the petitioner in the said writ petition. She claims that the husband of the 5 th respondent along with his son executed agreement of sale dated 30.04.1977 vide document No.555 of 1977 in respect of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.6.24 cents in Sy.No.274 of Etheru Revenue Village, Bapatla Mandal and District for total sale consideration of Rs.56,000/-. 2. It is further stated that the appellant paid an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards part-payment and possession was delivered to her. It is agreed that the appellant has to discharge the loans mentioned in the said agreement of sale. It is further stated that the appellant got mutated her name in revenue records as the possession was delivered to her by virtue of the said agreement of sale and the unofficial respondents did not object to the same. - 3. Be that as it may, the 5 th respondent filed suit in OS No.118 of 2015, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla against the appellant seeking declaration of title and to grant permanent injunction in respect of the subject land. Incidentally, a representation dated 04.05.2015 was filed to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of subject lands before the 3rd respondent. In turn, the same was entertained and by order dated 18.01.2019, the 3 rd respondent cancelled pattadar pass books issued in favour of the appellant. As against the said order, a revision was filed before the 2 nd respondent whereunder the order of the 3 rd respondent was confirmed by order dated 03.10.2020. Questioning the same, the appellant filed writ petition vide W.P.No.21817 of 2020 and the same was dismissed by order dated 28.02.2025, which is impugned in the present writ appeal. 4. Heard counsel for the appellant, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and counsel for the Respondent No.6. 5. It is the case of the appellant that her name was mutated in revenue records based on agreement of sale dated 30.04.1977 said to have been executed by the husband of 5 th respondent along with his son. Admittedly no sale deed is executed in her favour till today. 5. It is the case of the appellant that her name was mutated in revenue records based on agreement of sale dated 30.04.1977 said to have been executed by the husband of 5 th respondent along with his son. Admittedly no sale deed is executed in her favour till today. Furthermore, the 5 th respondent filed suit for declaration in OS No.118 of 2015, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla and the same is pending adjudication. As seen from the order of the learned Single Judge, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that as per Section 4 of Act 26 of 1971, who ever acquired right by succession, inheritance, partition, patta or decree of a Court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee is entitled to mutate his name in revenue records. While referring to the said provision, the learned Single Judge observed that the agreement of sale does not fall within the documents mentioned under the said provision and further observed that the appellant by playing fraud got mutated her name in revenue records. - 6. Be that as it may, it is settled proposition of law that appeal under Section 5(5) of the said Act is not maintainable as against the cancellation of the pattadar pass books as held by this Court in Ratnamma Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer , Dharmavaram and Others, 2015 (6) ALD 609 (DB). 7. On considerations of submissions made by both counsel, as rightly contended by the counsel for the appellant, a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, in Ratnamma Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur District and two (02) others, after a review of the provisions of RoR Act had held that there is no appeal provided against the issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed. In the present case a representation dated 04.05.2015 was filed to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of subject lands before the 3 rd respondent and in view of the Judgment of Division Bench in Ratnamma’s case, such appeal is not maintainable. 8. In the present case a representation dated 04.05.2015 was filed to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of subject lands before the 3 rd respondent and in view of the Judgment of Division Bench in Ratnamma’s case, such appeal is not maintainable. 8. It is not in dispute that in the case on hand, the representation made by the 5 th respondent was entertained by the 3 rd respondent and treated the same as appeal under Section 5(5), cancelled the pattadar pass books issued in favour of the appellant. As already noted supra, the order of the 3 rd respondent was confirmed by the 2nd respondent. 9. Though the contention of the 5th respondent that agreement of sale dated 30.04.1977 does not confer title on the appellant, as held by this Court in the above referred judgment, appeal under Section 5(5) of Act 26 of 1971 is not maintainable for cancellation of pattadar pass books. In such circumstances, the order passed by the 3 rd respondent is one without jurisdiction and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. As the order of the 3 rd respondent is set aside, order in revision dated 03.10.2020 passed by the 2 nd respondent is also set aside. - 10. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 would submit that if the instant appeal is allowed, the same would amount to reviving illegal mutation made in favour of the appellant, despite the fact that the agreement of sale will not confer title. Though we find force in the submission of the counsel for the 6 th respondent, the issue involved in the present writ appeal is no more res integra in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ratnamma Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer & others, Dharmavaram. Further, when a particular procedure is contemplated under law, the same has to be adhere to. On perusal of the record, it is clear that the 5 th respondent preferred appeal questioning the issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of the appellant, though despite the fact that the same is not maintainable. The Revenue Divisional Officer & others, Dharmavaram. Further, when a particular procedure is contemplated under law, the same has to be adhere to. On perusal of the record, it is clear that the 5 th respondent preferred appeal questioning the issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of the appellant, though despite the fact that the same is not maintainable. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that this Court is reviving the illegal mutation in favour of the appellant rather the procedure adopted by the 5 th respondent cannot be permitted under law as no such appeal can be entertained. It is needless to mention that the 6 th respondent is at liberty to question the mutation and as well as the issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of the appellant as provided under law. - 11. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside, so also orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 & 3. Further, the 6th respondent is at liberty to question the issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of the appellant by invoking appropriate steps in accordance with law. 12. According, the writ appeal is allowed. There shall be no order to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. -