L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed against the order, dated 5. 9. 2003, passed by the first respondent in a batch of three appeals preferred under Sub-Section (5) of section 5 of the A. P. Record of Right in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 ( the Act for brevity ). ( 2 ) PETITIONERS claim that they are the absolute owners of lands in Survey Numbers 113 and etcetera situated at Chandanagar village, Serilingampalli Mandal. They state that they filed O. S. No. 180 of 1987 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil judge, Ranga Reddy District for partition of the land and allotment of half share and a final decree came to be passed on 10. 3. 2000 on the basis of a compromise. ( 3 ) IN respect of the very land, respondents 4 to 6 and others submitted an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampalli Mandal, the second respondent, for effecting mutations in the revenue records. Petitioners and various others, who were impleaded in this writ petition, filed their objections. The second respondent passed an order, dated 9. 6. 2003, taking the view that the petitioners are entitled for entry of their names in the revenue records on the basis of the decree in O. S. No. 180 of 1987. One of the objectors, who was impleaded as respondent No. 8 in this writ petition, has filed O. S. No. 778 of 2000 in the same Court for the relief of setting aside the decree in o. S. No. 180 of 1987. Orders of temporary injunction were passed in I. A. No. 1316 of 2001. The second respondent took note of the same and directed that any entry in contravention of order of temporary injunction shall stand nullified. Aggrieved by the orders of the second respondent, dated 9. 6. 2003, three independent appeals were filed before the first respondent. He allowed the appeals through order, dated 5. 9. 2003, mainly on the ground that the decree in o. S. No. 180 of 1987 is not binding on many claimants since they were not parties to it. Aggrieved by the orders of the second respondent, dated 9. 6. 2003, three independent appeals were filed before the first respondent. He allowed the appeals through order, dated 5. 9. 2003, mainly on the ground that the decree in o. S. No. 180 of 1987 is not binding on many claimants since they were not parties to it. The other ground on which he interfered with the orders of the second respondent is that mutations were already effected in favour of six appellants before him who include respondents 3 to 6 and that the same were not challenged by the writ petitioners or any other persons. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Venkata Ramana, submits that the third respondent has taken a specific plea that the provisions of the Act would not apply to the lands in question since they have already been delivered and divided into plots and despite such a specific plea, he has carried the matter in appeal under the provisions of that very Act. His other contention is that the order of the first respondent suffers from the errors apparent on the face of the record and the observations which run contrary to law. ( 5 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the first respondent has appreciated the matter in proper perspective and no exception can be taken to it. He submits that if the petitioners feel aggrieved by this order, they have to avail the remedy of revision under Section 9 of the Act and the writ petition is not maintainable. ( 6 ) SRI B. Adinarayana Rao and Sri P. M. Gopal Rao, learned counsel appearing for the non-official respondents submit that the second respondent committed several irregularities while passing the order, dated 9. 6. 2003. They submit that the second respondent ignored the basic principle of law that the decree in a suit cannot bind the persons, who are not parties to it. They submit that the second respondent has ignored his own orders passed infavour of some of the contesting respondents particularly respondents 4 to 6 and the appellate authority did nothing more than correcting these patent errors. ( 7 ) PROCEEDINGS were initiated before the second respondent under Section 4 of the act for making certain entries in the revenue records in respect of the lands referred to above. ( 7 ) PROCEEDINGS were initiated before the second respondent under Section 4 of the act for making certain entries in the revenue records in respect of the lands referred to above. There were several sets of claims for the land. While some were based on the existing entries, the others were on the basis of a decree in a partition suit. Some of the claimants stated that they are already armed with the orders of the recording authority and that the same need to be implemented. ( 8 ) THE second respondent had admitted the claims of the petitioners on the strength of the decree in O. S. No. 180 of 1987. As observed earlier, there were several sets of claims and the nature of each claim differs substantially with the other. A perusal of the order of the first respondent discloses that the decree in O. S. NO. 180 of 1987 constituted the sole or exclusive basis for the order passed by him. Once it emerges that some of the objectors or the persons whose names are already recorded are not parties to the said decree, the effect of the same ought to have been considered. There cannot be any objection for implementing the decree against the persons, who are parties to it. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, where it is to be enforced against the persons who are not parties, the matter needs to be dealt with at a different claim. This aspect does not appear to have been appreciated by the second respondent. ( 10 ) AS many as three appeals came to be preferred against the order of the second respondent, dated 9. 6. 2003. While the second respondent proceeded as though the decree is binding on everybody irrespective of the fact whether one is party to it or not, the first respondent has taken the other extreme view. He virtually has refused to recognize the decree on the ground that it was ex parte. The same is impermissible in law. A distinction has to be made between such persons who are parties to the decree and those who are not. The first respondent appears to have been impressed by the fact that the decree is subject matter of the challenge in another suit. The same is impermissible in law. A distinction has to be made between such persons who are parties to the decree and those who are not. The first respondent appears to have been impressed by the fact that the decree is subject matter of the challenge in another suit. Even if any legal consequences arise out of it, they in turn are to be confined only to those who have filed such a suit. Viewed from any angle, generalization as regards the applicability of the decree in O. S. NO. 180 of 1987 is not correct. ( 11 ) ANOTHER factor, which impressed the first respondent, was that the appellants 2 to 7 in one of the appeals before him were already armed with orders of mutation by the recording authority. If that was the case, the circumstances under which they remain unimplemented etcetera were not at all taken into account. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the matter needs a fresh consideration and disposal by the second respondent keeping in view the observations made above. ( 12 ) HENCE, the writ petition is allowed and the orders, dated 5. 9. 2003, passed by the first respondent and the one, dated 9. 6. 2003, passed by the second respondent are set aside. The matter is remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration and disposal after issuing notice to all the affected parties. It is directed that he shall take into account the fact that the decree in O. S. No. 180 of 1987 shall be binding only on those who are parties to it and the claims vis--vis the persons who are not parties to it are to be dealt with independently. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.