ANDHRA PRADESH RIGHTS IN LAND & PATTADAR PASSBOOKS ACT, 1971 – Ss. 4, 5(1), 5(2), 5(2-A), 5(3), 5(4), 8(2), 9 – MUTATION ENTRIES – APPEAL UNDER S.5(4) – APPEAL LIES ONLY AGAINST (i) ORDER OF TAHSILDAR UNDER S.5(1) OR (ii) AMENDMENT UNDER S.5(3) – NO APPEAL LIES IF TAHSILDAR HAS PASSED NO ORDER

A. ANDHRA PRADESH RIGHTS IN LAND & PATTADAR PASSBOOKS ACT, 1971 – Ss. 4, 5(1), 5(2), 5(2-A), 5(3), 5(4), 8(2), 9 – MUTATION ENTRIES – APPEAL UNDER S.5(4) – APPEAL LIES ONLY AGAINST (i) ORDER OF TAHSILDAR UNDER S.5(1) OR (ii) AMENDMENT UNDER S.5(3) – NO APPEAL LIES IF TAHSILDAR HAS PASSED NO ORDER

Held: For an appeal under Section 5(4) to lie, there must exist:

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

2. An amendment of ROR under S. 5(3) (automatic change based on a registered document).

Absent either, no appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) (paras 18–20).

In the present case:

• 5th respondent claimed mutation based on inheritance, falling under S.5(1).
• Tahsildar passed no order under S.5(1), except issuing an endorsement dated 25-03-2025 advising parties to approach the civil court.
• Endorsement not challenged; no mutation order existed.

Held: RDO lacked jurisdiction to entertain or decide an appeal under S. 5(4). Impugned RDO order (18-10-2025) set aside as without jurisdiction (paras 19–21).

B. REVENUE AUTHORITIES – MUTATION BASED ON INHERITANCE – TAHASILDAR’S ROLE – PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER Ss. 4 & 5

Held:

• Mutation on basis of succession/inheritance must be processed only under S.4 → S.5(1).
• If Tahsildar refuses mutation, he cannot reject; must send file with recommendations to RDO under S.5(2) (para 11).
• RDO then acts only on “recommendations” under S.5(2-A).
• In the absence of such referral and order, RDO cannot assume jurisdiction.

C. JURISDICTION OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES – TITLE DISPUTES – LIMITATION OF POWERS – Ss. 8(2), 9

Held: Determination of title or competing ownership claims lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of the civil court under S.8(2) of the Act. Mutation authorities cannot conduct detailed title adjudication (para 7).
The present order does not determine title; all rights are left open (para 21).

D. RECORD OF RIGHTS – ORIGINAL ENTRIES – APPLICATION FOR CHANGE AFTER DECADES – S.3(3)

Held (observation): S.3(3) provides only a one-year window to seek rectification of initial ROR entries. Appellants argued that entries existed since 1980 and challenge after 44 years was not maintainable (para 7).
Court leaves this question open (para 21).

E. WRIT PETITION & WRIT APPEAL – COMMON ORDER – SCOPE – DISPOSAL

Since the RDO’s order suffered from jurisdictional error, both the Writ Petition (30624/2025) and the Writ Appeal (1164/2025) were allowed (para 22). All issues on title, delay, and merits remain open.

F. PRECEDENT – RATNAMMA v. RDO, DHARMAVARAM (2015(6) ALD 609) – APPLICATION

Division Bench precedent applied: appeal under S.5(4) is maintainable only against mutation orders or amendments specifically traceable to S.5(1) or S.5(3). As no such order existed here, RDO had no jurisdiction (paras 17–18).

RESULT

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

2. W.P. No. 30624/2025 – Allowed.

3. W.A. No. 1164/2025 – Allowed.

4. All rights of parties left open to be adjudicated before appropriate forum (civil court).

5. No order as to costs.

6. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

---