This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the order in proceedings D.DIS D4/1873/2004 dated 05.05.2013 of respondent No.2 confirming the order in proceedings D.Dis B2/4799/03 dated 12.02.2004 of respondent No.3.

In August, 2001, respondent No.4 granted pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of Acs.7.80 cents of land in survey Nos.274/2 and 244/3 etc., in favour of respondent No.5. More than two years later, the father of the petitioner approached respondent No.4 feeling aggrieved by the said action. Respondent No.4, thereupon, referred the dispute to respondent No.3, who entertained the dispute as an appeal and after hearing both the parties, respondent No.3 opined that since the parties are claiming rights through their respective Wills set up by them, it is appropriate that the parties get their dispute settled through a civil suit before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner’s father filed a revision petition purportedly under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) before respondent No.2. During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner’s father died. The petitioner has, therefore, come on record in place of his deceased father. After hearing both the parties, respondent No.2 has endorsed the view taken by respondent No.3 and dismissed the revision petition.

At the hearing, Sri T.Vijay Hanuman Singh, learned counsel representing Sri P.Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously argued that before issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of respondent No.5, respondent No.4 has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act as no notice was issued to the petitioner’s father and that therefore, issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of respondent No.5 is vitiated.

If a person is aggrieved by the issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, he is entitled to file an appeal before respondent No.3. It needs to be observed at this stage that even though Section 5(5) of the Act does not in express terms subject issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds under Section 6-A of the Act to the appellate jurisdiction under Section 5(5) of the Act, this Court in many a case interpreted Section 5(5) of the Act as to comprehend an action taken under Section 6-A of the Act as well. Therefore, the father of the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act before respondent No.3. Instead, he has approached respondent No.4 with a petition, which was forwarded by the said respondent to respondent No.3, who thereupon treated the same as an appeal. This procedure, in my opinion, is not envisaged under the Act.

Be that as it may, the claim raised by the petitioner is based on succession through a Will. While respondent No.5 has claimed succession through a Will stated to have been executed by the original owner of the property during the year 1994, the father of the petitioner has claimed his right through a purported subsequent Will stated to have been executed by the same person in the year 2000. As rightly pointed out by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in their orders, the complicated issues of succession can be adjudicated only by the competent civil Court and they have rightly referred to the procedure prescribed under Section 8(2) of the Act, which reads as under:

“Section 8. Bar of Suits:-

(2) If any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963) and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration.”

On the facts of the present case, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have rightly held that the dispute raised by the parties