An appeal under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 is only maintainable against an order making or refusing an amendment in the Record of Rights.

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. 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 si