The main legal point established in the judgment is that a preliminary decree in a partition suit does not conclusively determine the shares of the parties, and the authority must act independently of legal opinions when updating record of rights.

ORDER

Subba Reddy Satti, J. - The above writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

'to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in taking steps to mutate the names of the unofficial respondents in the revenue records in-spite of receiving the notice dated 21.09.2023 in respect of the lands to an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in S.No.29-4, Ac.0.06 cents in S.No.29/6, Ac.1.32 cents in S.No.29/7, Ac.0.15 cents in S.No.29/8, Ac.0.69 cents In S.No.29/9, Ac.0.41 cents in S.No.29/11, Ac.1.21 cents in S.No.42, Ac.0.96 cents in S.No.43/1, Ac.0.33 cents in S.No.43/2, Ac.1.0 cents in S.No.47/1, Ac.0.43 cents in S.No.72/1, Ac.0.56 cents in S.No.168/1, Ac.0.09 cents in S.No.168/5, Ac.0.52 cents in S.No.168/3, Ac.0.08 cents in S.No.168/6, Ac.0.42 cents in S.No.176/2, Ac.1.45 cents in S.No.68, Ac.8.01 cents in S.No.1032, Ac.0.82 cents in S.No.174/2, Ac.4.0 cents in S.No.173, Ac.2.06 cents in S.No.1033/1, Ac.0.61 cents in S.No.172/1, Ac.0.47 cents in S.No.170, Ac.0.25 cents in S.No.169, Ac.0.10 cents in S.No.446/3, Ac.0.10 cents in S.No.162/3, Ac.0.69 cents in S.No.172/3, Ac.1.56 cents in S.No.23/1, Ac.1.02 cents in S.No.24, Ac.3.00 cents in S.No.28, Ac.0.18 cents in S.No.29/5, Ac.0.11 cents in S.No.31/3, Ac.0.07 cents in S.No.34/2 and Ac.0.09 cents in S.No.35/3, of Basinikonda Revenue Village Madanapalle Mandal, Annamayya District pending S.A.No.144 of 2016 and declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the proceedings Roc.A/300/2023 dated 08.09.2023 mutating the name of the un-official respondents in the revenue records as illegal, improper, unjust and arbitrary and contrary the provision of Sec.5 (3) Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and pass such other ...'

2. (a) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that one Araveeti Krishnamma (mother of R5 and R6) and respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein filed O.S. No. 45 of 1999 against the petitioner herein and others on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, seeking partition of scheduled land properties and to allot 1/5th share in the plaint schedule properties etc. On contest, preliminary decree was passed allotting 1/5th share to plaintiff No.1, 1/5th share to plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and 3/5th share to the defendant No.1(petitioner in the writ petition).

(b) Aggrieved by the preliminary decree, the petitioner filed appeal A.S.No.5 of 2010 on the file of learned VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. The Appellate Court initially granted interim stay in I.A.No.69 of 2010, eventually dismissed the appeal. The petitioner preferred second appeal vide S.A. No. 144 of 2016 on the file of the High Court and the High Court by order dated 23.08.2017, granted stay of passing final decree. The Second Appeal is pending consideration.

(c) While the matter stood thus, after the death of plaintiff No.1 i.e. Araveeti Krishnamma, her siblings R5 and R6 along with other R7 and R8 made representation to the Tahsildar on 20.05.2023 to mutate their names in the revenue records as per the decree. The petitioner herein filed objections before the Tahsildar/respondent No.4. However, the Tahsildar, without considering the objections and without issuing notice opened file in Roc.No.A/195/2023 and is proceeding to mutate names of unofficial respondents. Even after receiving legal notice issued by the petitioner, intimating about pendency of second appeals in respect of the very same property, the Tahsildar is attempting to mutate the names of unofficial respondents. In view of the counter affidavit, prayer was amended to set aside the proceedings of Tahsildar, Madanapalle vide Roc.A/300/2023, dated 08.09.2023. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Counter is filed on behalf of respondent 4. It was contended, inter alia, that the unofficial respondents made a representation stating that a decree was passed in the suit O.S.No.45 of 1999 filed by them, allotting 2/5 share i