ANDHRA PRADESH RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASSBOOKS ACT, 1971 – Ss. 3(3), 4, 5(1), 5(2), 5(2-A), 5(3), 5(4), 8(2), 9 – MUTATION – JURISDICTION OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – APPEAL UNDER S. 5(4) – MAINTAINABILITY – APPEAL LIES ONLY AGAINST AN ORDER OF THE TAHSILDAR UNDER S. 5(1) OR AMENDMENT UNDER S. 5(3) – NO APPEAL IF TAHSILDAR HAS PASSED NO ORDER

A. ANDHRA PRADESH RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASSBOOKS ACT, 1971 – Ss. 3(3), 4, 5(1), 5(2), 5(2-A), 5(3), 5(4), 8(2), 9 – MUTATION – JURISDICTION OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – APPEAL UNDER S. 5(4) – MAINTAINABILITY – APPEAL LIES ONLY AGAINST AN ORDER OF THE TAHSILDAR UNDER S. 5(1) OR AMENDMENT UNDER S. 5(3) – NO APPEAL IF TAHSILDAR HAS PASSED NO ORDER

Held:
Section 5(4) provides an appellate remedy only against:

1. An order of the Tahsildar under S. 5(1) (allowing or refusing mutation), or

2. An amendment of the Record of Rights under S. 5(3) (registered-document based automatic mutation).

Where no order is passed by the Tahsildar under S. 5(1), no appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer (paras 18–20).

In the present case, the 5th respondent’s claim was based on inheritance, thus governed by S. 5(1).
The Tahsildar did not pass any order under S. 5(1), except issuance of an endorsement dated 25-03-2025 advising parties to approach a civil court (para 15).
Such endorsement was not challenged and does not constitute an order under S. 5(1).

Held: The RDO’s order dated 18-10-2025 is without jurisdiction, and therefore liable to be set aside (paras 20–21).

B. SCOPE OF MUTATION PROCEEDINGS – TITLE QUESTIONS – SECTION 8(2) – CIVIL COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION

Held:
Mutation authorities cannot adjudicate questions of title or conduct a detailed factual enquiry relating to ownership; such matters fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the civil court under S. 8(2) of the Act (para 7).
The Court expressly refrained from examining rights or title of either party (para 21).

C. RECORD OF RIGHTS – RECTIFICATION AFTER ONE YEAR – SECTION 3(3)

Appellants argued that entries in favour of their predecessors existed since 1980 and that applications after 44 years are barred by S. 3(3) (para 7).
The Court left this issue open (para 21).

D. PROCEDURAL SCHEME UNDER Ss. 4 & 5 – REQUIREMENT OF TAHASILDAR’S ORDER BEFORE APPEAL

• Under S. 4, any person acquiring rights (succession, survivorship, inheritance, patta, decree, etc.) must intimate the Tahsildar.
• Under S. 5(1), the Tahsildar must conduct enquiry and either carry out mutation or, if he concludes mutation is impermissible, he cannot reject; he must refer the matter under S. 5(2) with recommendations to the RDO (para 11).
• Only thereafter does RDO exercise power under S. 5(2-A).

In the present case, none of these mandatory steps occurred; the RDO acted in the absence of a referral and in absence of any S.5(1) order (paras 11, 19).

E. APPLICABILITY OF RATNAMMA v. RDO, DHARMAVARAM (2015 (6) ALD 609)

Division Bench judgment in Ratnamma holds:
An appeal under S. 5(4) lies only against an order of the Tahsildar; no appeal is maintainable in the absence of such an order (para 17).

Held: Ratnamma applies.
Since no order under S.5(1) was passed by the Tahsildar, the RDO had no jurisdiction (paras 18–20).

F. REPRESENTATIONS FILED AFTER DECADES – MAINTAINABILITY UNDER THE ACT

Appellants’ argument: Entries existed since 1980; representations in 2025 are not maintainable (para 7).
Court: Issue not decided; all questions of delay are kept open (para 21).

G. RESULT – WRIT PETITION & WRIT APPEAL – COMMON DISPOSAL

1. Order of RDO dated 18-10-2025 in D.Dis.No.D2(B)/989/2025 set aside as without jurisdiction (para 21).

2. W.P. No. 30624/2025 allowed.

3. W.A. No. 1164/2025 allowed.

4. Parties left to pursue their rights before appropriate forum (civil court) (para 22).

5. No order as to costs.

6. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.