This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.No.2026/11-D4, dated 15.1.2013, of respondent No.2, whereby he has confirmed the order, dated 31.3.2010, of respondent No.3.

2. In the manner in which this Court is proposing to dispose of the writ petition, it is not necessary to record the facts in detail. It will suffice to note that in the family partition, Ac.0.88 cents of land fell to the share of the husband of petitioner No.1. According to the petitioners, the husband of petitioner No.1 by name, Venkateswar Rao, was holding pattadar pass books and title deeds. The said Venkateswar Rao died in the year 2002. On the petitioners approaching respondent No.4, he has issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of petitioner No.1. Years later, respondent No.5 approached respondent No.4 by claiming that the property belongs to him and that therefore issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds to petitioner No.1 was illegal.

3. Respondent No.4 has submitted a report on 22.1.2010 to respondent No.3, who thereupon has initiated suo motu proceedings by treating the said report as an appeal. After giving notice to both the parties, respondent No.3 allowed the purported appeal and set aside the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued to petitioner No.1 and further directed to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of respondent No.5. The said order was con finned in the revision petition filed by the petitioners before respondent No.2 under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). These two orders have been questioned in this writ petition.

4. Besides making his submissions on merits, the learned Counsel for the petitioners mainly emphasised on the procedural illegality committed by respondent No.3 in treating the report of respondent No.4 as an appeal and setting aside the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued to petitioner No.1.

5. Under Section 5(5) of the Act, against every order of the recording authority either making an amendment or refusing to make such amendment, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer or any other prescribed authority within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the said order. The order passed in such appeal is final subject to the order that may be passed under Section 9 of the Act by the Collector exercising the revisional power.

6. Rule 21 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules') also made a similar provision as Section 5(5) of the Act. Under sub-rule (2) thereof, the manner in which an appeal has to be filed is envisaged besides prescribing sixty days as limitation for filing such appeal. Under sub-rule (3) thereof, the appellant shall pay the Court fee stamp of Rs.5/-.

7. From the above-noted provisions, it is evident that respondent No.3 is constituted as an appellate authority, who is conferred with the power of entertaining the appeals filed by the aggrieved parties by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 21 of the Rules. From the order passed by respondent No.3, it is clear that respondent No.5 has not filed any appeal. Instead of filing such an appeal, respondent No.5 has approached respondent No.4 who in turn submitted a report which was taken as ROR appeal by respondent No.3. This procedure in my opinion is patently contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules.

8. Smt. K. Sesharajyam, learned Counsel for respondent No.5, has relied upon Rule 13(2) of the Rules which reads as under:

"13. (1) xxx

(2) The Mandal Revenue Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer, and the Deputy Collector (Record of Rights) the District Revenue Officer, the Collector of the District, and any officer designated by the Collector for this purpose in exercise of their general powers of supervision, shall be competent, suo motu, to test and revise the entries in the confirmed Record of Rights provided that no r