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. 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 in the suit properties to them and the appeal in A.S.No.5 of 2010 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed and hence requested for mutation of their names in revenue records. Upon receipt of the representation of unofficial respondents, notice was served to the writ petitioner, affording an opportunity for response. During the hearing, the petitioner submitted that a stay was granted by the High Court in S.A. No. 144/2016. 4th respondent Tahsildar after obtaining legal advice from Assistant Government pleader, Madanapalle, proceeded with enquiry and mutated the names of the unofficial respondents, subject to the outcome of the pending appeal. During the hearing, the petitioner submitted that a stay was granted by the High Court in S.A. No. 144/2016. 4th respondent Tahsildar after obtaining legal advice from Assistant Government pleader, Madanapalle, proceeded with enquiry and mutated the names of the unofficial respondents, subject to the outcome of the pending appeal. However, due to the interim stay granted by the High Court in the present writ petition, no further action has been undertaken. Eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the unofficial respondents (R5-R8). It was contended that, when one of the co-sharers demands partition of the properties, the petitioner, acting as the Kartha/elder of the family, lacks entitlement to retain that role or singularly maintain his name in the revenue records. The petitioner delayed the allotment of shares to the respondents and unlawfully disposed off some of the joint family properties through sale deeds registered in the 2007. The Civil Court had rendered decree delineating the shares of the unofficial respondents herein. Name of the petitioner cannot be remained, in revenue records, in respect of entire joint family properties in view of the judgement in the suit. b. Respondent No.4 has obligation to affect the mutation/updation of names for all individuals holding interests or shares in the property, in accordance with the law. The respondent No.4 adhered to due process, while incorporating the names of the respondents in the revenue records after considering the objections submitted by the petitioner. As per section 5(b) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'), the aggrieved party can prefer an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer instead of approaching the High Court. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Reply was filed by the petitioner denying the averment that as per section 3 of the Act, respondent No.4 is bound to mutate the names of unofficial respondents and contended that respondent No.4, in fact doesn't have jurisdiction to decide the title between the parties. 6. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned GP for Revenue for 1 to 4 and Sri A.Shyam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 8. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that final decree in suit O.S.No.45 of 1999 is not passed and hence, the suit is deemed to be pending. 6. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned GP for Revenue for 1 to 4 and Sri A.Shyam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 8. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that final decree in suit O.S.No.45 of 1999 is not passed and hence, the suit is deemed to be pending. He would also submit that respondent No.4/Tahsildar, without a final decree, updated the record of rights in terms of preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.45 of 1999. He would also submit that S.A.No.144 of 2016 is pending on the file of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble High Court granted interim stay of passing final decree. He submitted that respondent No.4 failed to adhere to the procedure mandated under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would contend that respondent No.4 followed the procedure and updated Record of Rights as per the decree in O.S.No.45 of 1999 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanpalle. 9. Learned counsel for unofficial respondents would submit that petitioner sold some of the properties vide registered documents bearing Nos.5164/2007, 5165/2007 and 8014/2007 dated 15.06.2007, 15.06.2007 and 03.10.2007 respectively. In view of the preliminary decree, respondent No.4 is bound to mutate the names of unofficial respondents and accordingly respondent No.4 mutated the names of unofficial respondents. He would submit that an appeal would lie under Section 5(b) of the Act to RDO and hence, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. The points for consider are: (1) Whether proceedings vide Roc.A/300/2023, issued by Tahsildar is in consonance with Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and the Rules made there under? If not, proceedings are liable to be set aside? (2) Whether a preliminary decree in a suit for partition determines the rights and shares of the parties finally enabling the Tahsildar to update records rights or changing mutation as per the decree? 11. Undisputed facts, as seen from the pleadings, are that one Smt. Araveeti Krishnamma along with respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein filed suit O.S.No.45 of 1999 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, against the petitioner and others seeking partition of the schedule properties. Preliminary decree was passed on 17.11.2009 allotting 1/5th share to Araveeti Krishnamma, 1/5th share to plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and 3/5th share to petitioner herein. Preliminary decree was passed on 17.11.2009 allotting 1/5th share to Araveeti Krishnamma, 1/5th share to plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and 3/5th share to petitioner herein. Appeal A.S.No.5 of 2010 filed by the petitioner against decree of the trial Court was dismissed on 31.08.2015 against which second appeal vide S.A.No.144 of 2016 is filed on the file of the Hon'ble High Court and interim order, staying passing of final decree, was granted on 28.08.2017. 12. This court wants to deal with issue No.2 first. To deal with issue No.2, one should know the definition of a Decree, scope of preliminary decree and final decree, which are extract hereunder: 13. Decree is defined under Sec 2(2) of Code of Civil Procedure. "Decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144, but shall not include: (emphasis is mine) (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default. Explanation .A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final. 14. Thus, a careful perusal of the definition extracted supra would indicate adjudication or determination of the rights of parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy and such determination should be conclusive. The explanation makes it clear that a decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to taken. The final decree completes adjudication finally. 15. In Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bubna Vs Sita Saran Bubna and others, (2009) 9 SCC 689 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: 'As the declaration of rights or shares is only the first stage in a suit for partition, a preliminary decree does not have the effect of disposing of the suit. 15. In Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bubna Vs Sita Saran Bubna and others, (2009) 9 SCC 689 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: 'As the declaration of rights or shares is only the first stage in a suit for partition, a preliminary decree does not have the effect of disposing of the suit. The suit continues to be pending until partition, that is division by metes and bounds, takes place by passing a final decree.' Further observed that 'in a partition suit the preliminary decrees only decide a part of the suit and therefore an application for passing a final decree is only an application in a pending suit, seeking further progress. In partition suits, there can be a preliminary decree followed by a final decree, or there can be a decree which is a combination of preliminary decree and final decree or there can be merely a single decree with certain further steps to be taken by the court. In fact, several applications for final decree are permissible in a partition suit. A decree in a partition suit enures to the benefit of all the co-owners and therefore, it is sometimes said that there is really no judgment-debtor in a partition decree. A preliminary decree for partition only identifies the properties to be subjected to partition, defines and declares the shares/rights of the parties. That part of the prayer relating to actual division by metes and bounds and allotment is left for being completed under the final decree proceedings. Thus, the application for final decree as and when made is considered to be an application in a pending suit for granting the relief of division by metes and bounds.' 16. In Ganduri Koteshwaramma and another Vs Chakri Yanadi, (2011) 9 SCC 788 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that as follows: 'A preliminary decree determines the rights and interests of the parties. The suit for partition is not disposed of by passing of the preliminary decree. It is by a final decree that the immovable property of joint Hindu family is partitioned by metes and bounds. After the passing of the preliminary decree, the suit continues until the final decree is passed. The suit for partition is not disposed of by passing of the preliminary decree. It is by a final decree that the immovable property of joint Hindu family is partitioned by metes and bounds. After the passing of the preliminary decree, the suit continues until the final decree is passed. If in the interregnum i.e. after passing of the preliminary decree and before the final decree is passed, the events and supervening circumstances occur necessitating change in shares, there is no impediment for the court to amend the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree redetermining the rights and interests of the parties having regard to the changed situation.' 17. Thus, in view of the expression of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a suit for partition, preliminary decree itself will not determine all the shares of the parties finally. Final decree must be passed finally determining the shares among the parties. In fact, the case at hand second appeal, filed against the preliminary decree is pending consideration. Interim order/stay for passing of final decree was granted. Hence, it cannot be said that the preliminary decree passed in the suit became final. Thus, a preliminary decree, in a suit for partition, where a number of properties are involved, will not determine the shares of the sharers conclusively. Final decree alone determines the shares of the parties finally. Of course, after passing of final decree, the decree needs to be engrossed. 18. It is apt to have a look at Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, which are relevant, as extracted hereunder: 4. Acquisition of rights to be intimated:- (1) Any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a Court or otherwise any right as owner, pattadar, mortgagee, occupant or tenant of a land and any person acquiring any right through online or in person addressed to the Tahsildar within sixty (60) days from the date of such acquisition, in the manner hereinafter provided: (emphasis is mine) Provided that such intimation of acquisition of right addressed to the Tahsildar shall be submitted either online or in person at any service centre as notified for the purposes of this Act. Provided further that the issuance of acknowledgement of the receipt of such intimation shall be in such form, format and manner as prescribed under the rules. Provided further that the issuance of acknowledgement of the receipt of such intimation shall be in such form, format and manner as prescribed under the rules. Provided also that where the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other persons having charge of his property shall intimate the fact of such acquisition to the Tahsildar.] [5. Amendment and up-dating of record of rights] - (1) On receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in section 4, otherwise than by a registered document the Tahsildar shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence thereof and shall carryout the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination. (2) In the event of the Tahsildar determining that the amendment in consequence of the acquisition of right referred to in sub-section (1) above, is liable to be refused, then the Tahsildar shall transmit all the documents to the Revenue Divisional Officer with the recommendations. (2a) The Revenue Divisional Officer, on receipt of such recommendations, shall pass an order as under, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the interested persons, (i) Confirming the recommendations of the Tahsildar. (ii) Disagreeing with the recommendations of the Tahsildar. (iii) On the receipt of communication of disagreement under 5(2a) (ii), the Tahsildar shall carry out the amendment of R.O.R., as provided for under Section 5(1). Provided that the procedure for initiation and conclusion of action by the Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer shall be such as may be prescribed under the Rules. 19. A perusal of Section 4 manifests that any person acquiring title by way of succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, Government patta, decree of a court or otherwise any right as owner, etc. shall intimate in writing of his acquisition of such right, through online or in person to the Tahsildar, within sixty days from the date of such acquisition. On receipt of intimation qua acquisition of right, the Tahsildar shall determine as to whether record of rights can be updated in consequence thereof and carry out the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination. In case Tahsildar intends to refuse such updation of record of rights, he shall transmit all the documents to the Revenue Divisional Officer with recommendations. In case Tahsildar intends to refuse such updation of record of rights, he shall transmit all the documents to the Revenue Divisional Officer with recommendations. The Revenue Divisional Officer, upon receipt of such recommendation shall pass order either confirming the recommendations of Tahsildar or disagreeing with the recommendations of the Tahsildar. Upon receipt of communication of disagreement under Section 5(2a)(ii), Tahsildar shall carry out amendment of ROR. 20. First proviso to Section 4 prescribes the procedure to make application and second proviso speaks about the issuance of acknowledgement. Thus, a person, who acquired title as per the circumstances mentioned in Section 4 of the Act shall make application as per the procedure prescribed. 21. Rule 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules') speaks about maintenance of record of rights, which includes incorporation of mutations in the respective entries in pursuance of orders passed under Section 5 of the Act. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 18 prescribes procedure regarding intimation of acquisition of rights to the Tahsildar, the time within which the order to be passed and if no order is passed, consequences thereof. The intimation shall be in Form-VI-A. 22. Thus, the words 'decree of a court' used in Section 4 of the Act, gains significance. The decree of the court should be understood as determination of rights finally by the Court but not preliminary decree in a suit for partition. The rights of the parties should be adjudicated conclusively. The case at hand, admittedly preliminary decree is passed, and final decree is yet to be passed. Thus, the shares of the parties are not crystalized. Unless and until, the shares are crystalized, updating the record of rights in the names of unofficial respondents, as per the preliminary decree, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not permissible. However, the 4th respondent based upon the legal opinion of the AGP, Madanapalle changed the entries, as per the preliminary decree. In fact, in a way, respondent No.4 passed final decree usurping the power of the Civil Court. 23. The legal opinion issued by an advocate, will aid the authority in assessing the matter before it. Notwithstanding the legal opinion, the authority must take decision independently. In the recent past, a trend has been developed that along with the counter affidavits or proceedings, the officers have been filing those legal opinions. 23. The legal opinion issued by an advocate, will aid the authority in assessing the matter before it. Notwithstanding the legal opinion, the authority must take decision independently. In the recent past, a trend has been developed that along with the counter affidavits or proceedings, the officers have been filing those legal opinions. Even in this case also, the legal opinion issued by the advocate was filed along with counter affidavit. Learned advocate gave opinion that names of respondents 5 to 8 can be entered basing upon Section 5 sub section 13 and judgment reported in 2014 (2) ALD 77 . This court will not comment upon the opinion of learned advocate. However, since the opinion is placed, this court perused the same. 24. This court is conscious that no finding should be recorded qua the opinion of learned advocate. However, this court is making comments qua the contents. There is no sub section 13 to section 5 in the Statute. Assuming for a while that sub section 13 is wrongly typed, and it is Sec 5(1)(3) of the Act, it doesn't apply to the facts of the case. There is no registered document to apply Sec 5(1)(3) of the Act. Even the judgement cited in the legal opinion, Anjaneyulu Gupta's case, learned single judge of composite high court did not decide the issue as to whether preliminary decree finally determines the shares of the parties or not. In fact, the said question was left open. 25. Learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8 would urge that petitioner could have availed alternative remedy of appeal under Sec 5(4) of the Act. Availability of alternative remedy itself is no bar to entertain writ petition. When a disputed question of fact and law arise and there is an effective alternative judicial remedy, this Court by virtue of judicial restraint should not entertain such a writ. However, in the case at hand, there are no disputed questions of fact and in fact, based upon legal opinion, without adjudicating the issue independently respondent No.4 mutated the names of respondents 5 to 8, in part of the property. Thus, in the facts of this case, availability of alternative remedy is no bar to entertain the writ petition. 26. However, in the case at hand, there are no disputed questions of fact and in fact, based upon legal opinion, without adjudicating the issue independently respondent No.4 mutated the names of respondents 5 to 8, in part of the property. Thus, in the facts of this case, availability of alternative remedy is no bar to entertain the writ petition. 26. As seen from the legal opinion filed along with the counter affidavit, it seems respondents 5 to 8 made representation on 20.05.2023 nearly after 8 years after preliminary decree. When the 1st proviso mandates the procedure to make application, making representation contrary to the procedure and the authority ought not to have proceeded further, by acting upon such representation itself. In fact, entertaining such a representation is contrary Section 4 of the Act. Once the statue requires a thing to be done in that manner, it should be done in that manner or not all. This principle was approved and accepted in the case of Taylor Vs Taylor (1875) 1 Ch.D 426. The Hon'ble Apex Court expressed the same view in respect of procedural requirement in Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act in Ramachandra Keshav Adke Vs Govind Joti Chavare, AIR 1975 SC 915 . 27. The contention of leaned counsel for respondents 5 to 8 is that petitioner sold certain properties. If petitioner sold certain properties, respondents 5 to 8 can certainly take necessary steps in the pending second appeal. In fact, as seen from the material papers filed along with counter affidavit, it seems, petitioner sold the properties in the year 2007 pending the suit. The facts of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8 i.e. Arvind Vs State of Maharashtra, (2003) 3 Mh.L.J 1039 and Thummala Bharatamma Vs Joint Collector, Collectorate, Nalgonda and others, 2022 (3) ALD 288 do not apply to the facts of this case. 28. Though the mutation of entries, per se, does not confer title, the proceeding impugned are liable to be set aside since respondent No.4 failed to adhere to the procedure mandated under the Act, and usurped the jurisdiction of Civil Court in allotting the lands to the petitioner and respondents 5 to 8. 29. Thus, viewing from any angle, the proceedings of respondent No.4 issued vide Roc.A/300/2023 dated 08.09.2023 do not stand legal scrutiny and are liable to set aside. 29. Thus, viewing from any angle, the proceedings of respondent No.4 issued vide Roc.A/300/2023 dated 08.09.2023 do not stand legal scrutiny and are liable to set aside. Accordingly, the said proceedings are set aside. Respondent No.4 shall restore the name of the petitioner in respect of the lands mentioned in Roc.A/300/2023 dated 08.09.2023, forthwith. 30. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.