ORDER : K. MANMADHA RAO, J. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order. 2. Since the facts in both the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.18094 of 2023 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is one of the family member of Aduru Estate holders. Some of the members of Aduru family filed a suit for partition of the schedule lands (estate lands) on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nellore and a preliminary decree was passed on 19.12.1951. After the Estate Abolition Act , 1956 came in to force, the petitioners family members filed claims before the 4th respondent and the said claim petitions were ordered. Aggrieved by the same, an Appeal No. 27 of 1970 was filed before Estate Abolition Appellate Tribunal, wherein vide judgment dated 13.12.1971 orders of Settlement Officer was set aside by remanding the matter. It is stated that the 4th respondent vide order dated 07.02.2009 passed orders that family members are entitled for the patta only to the extent of Ac. 88.41 cents and remaining land is mining poramboke though such power is not vested with the settlement officer to declare the estate land as mining poramboke. Aggrieved by the said orders CMA No. 19/2009, ??? 27/2009 and CMA 29/2009 were filed before the Estate Abolition Appellate-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore and PrincipalDistrict Judge remanded the matter to the settlement officer by order dated 28.04.2012. Again 4th respondent Settlement Officer has passed orders on 02.09.2016 treating only Ac.88.41 cents as patta land and rejected patta for remaining extent of Ac. 147.69 cents. Aggrieved by the said order, some of the family members filed CMA No.11 of 2016 wherein, the petitioner has shown as objector respondent. 4. Again 4th respondent Settlement Officer has passed orders on 02.09.2016 treating only Ac.88.41 cents as patta land and rejected patta for remaining extent of Ac. 147.69 cents. Aggrieved by the said order, some of the family members filed CMA No.11 of 2016 wherein, the petitioner has shown as objector respondent. 4. Pending disposal of the above CMA.11 of 2016 before the Principal District Judge, Nellore, when 5th respondent and others were trying to obtain mining lease to the joint family lands which are declared as mining porambokes with false NOC's and other documents, one of the family member of the petitioners’ daughter AvulaVijayamma was filed W.P.No.5985 of 2021 before this Hon'ble Court seeking directions to the respondents 1 to 3 herein not to issue mining lease in favour of the unofficial respondents. This Hon'ble court vide order dated. 11.02.2022 has granted interim direction, not to grant mining lease in respect of the subject lands till the disposal of CMA 11 of 2016. Thereafter, the said CMA No.11 of 2016 was disposed of vide judgment dated 13.12.2021 again remanding the matter to the 4th respondent Settlement Officer. As the orders in W.P.No.5985/2021 by the Hon'ble High court are till the disposal of the appeal, though the matter was remanded back, taking advantage of the orders in C.M.A.No.11/2016, when the respondents 5 and 6 are making hectic efforts for obtaining mining leases, the petitioner was constrain to file W.P.No.16433/2022 to restrain the respondents 2 and 3 from granting mining lease to the respondents 5 and 6 with respect to subject lands pending disposal of the matter before 4th respondent Joint Collector- cum Settlement Officer. The said writ petition in W.P.No.16433/2022 was disposed of vide Orders dated 20.09.2022 Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondents 5 and 6 filed Writ Appeal No.755/2022, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, vide Judgment dt.13.10.2022. Pursuant to the Orders passedn C.M.A.No.11/2016, dt.13.12.2021, the 4th respondent passed Orders in S.R.No.1,12,13,15,15 (1)/1967, dt.24.02.2023 holding that the possession and enjoyment of the land by the claimants before the crucial date 01.07.1945 has to be proved by the claimants to get RythwariPatta u/s. 15 (1), which is lacking in this case and by holding that moreover, the continuous occupation through the specified date i.e. 01.07.1945 up to now is not proved by adducing any documentary evidence or otherwise, in this regard. As such, the claim of the petitioners u/s. 15 (1) of schedule mentioned land is not acceptable and the petitions are dismissed accordingly. 5. It is stated that aggrieved by the Orders of the 4th respondent dt.24.02.2023, the petitioner has filed C.M.A.No.04/2023 on the file of Prl. District Judge, Nellore along with an interlocutory application I.A.No.284/2023 seeking for stay of operation of the 4th respondent dt.24.02.2023, which is also pending. The other claimants also filed appeals i.e. C.M.A.No.10/2023, C.M.A.No.11/2023, C.M.A.No.14/2023 against the Orders of the 4th respondent dt.24.02.2023, which are also pending on the file of Prl. District Judge, Nellore. It is also stated that the 5th respondent and father of the 6th respondent also filed C.M.A.No.14/2023 against the Orders of the 4th respondent dt.24.02.2023.It is stated that during pendency of the appeals, the 5th respondent obtained mining leases with respect to land of an extent Ac.2.90 cents in Sy.No.49/part of Jogipalli village, Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District vide proceedings 2669/P/2017, dt.20.03.2023 and for an extent of Ac.9.36 cents in Sy.No.56/1 of Jogipalli village, Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District vide proceedings 2670/P/2017, dt.06.04.2023. The 6th respondent also obtained mining lease vide proceedings 106 (P)/2018, dt.20.03.2023 with respect to land of extent Ac.7.96 cents in Sy.No.39/part of Jogipalli village, Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Subsequently, 5th and 6th respondents have also started mining operations inthe above said land. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court inW.P.Nos.5985/2021 and 16433/2022 directed the Mining Authorities, during pendency of the matters before the Statutory Authorities i.e., the Settlement Officer, and Estate Abolition Tribunal not to grant mining leases in respect of subject lands to anybody. In W.P.No.16433 of 2022, this Hon'ble Court categorically directed the respondents 1 to 3 not to take any further steps for execution of lease deed in favour of 5th and 6th respondents till the disputes relating to the said lease is disposed of finally. Even though, the disputes with respect to subject land before the Prl. District Judge-cum-Estate Abolition Tribunal, Nellore with respect to same land is pending, the respondent authorities granted lease for mining in favour of the respondents 5 and 6. It is further stated that the Act provides statutory appeal and before the disposal of the appeal, the 3rd respondent is not justified in granting mining lease. District Judge-cum-Estate Abolition Tribunal, Nellore with respect to same land is pending, the respondent authorities granted lease for mining in favour of the respondents 5 and 6. It is further stated that the Act provides statutory appeal and before the disposal of the appeal, the 3rd respondent is not justified in granting mining lease. If 5th and 6th respondents are permitted to do mining activities in the subject lands pursuant to the leases granted in their favour, even the petitioners succeed in the appeals pending before the Prl. District Judge - cum Estate Abolition Tribunal, Nellore, the petitioners will be not in a position to utilize the land. The action of the respondents in granting mining lease to the 5th respondent vide proceedings 2669/P/2017, dt.20.03.2023 and proceedings 2670/P/2017, dt.06.04.2023 and to the 6th respondent vide proceedings 106 (P)/2018, dt.20.03.2023 with respect to land which is subject matter of CMA.No.04/2023 on the file of Prl. District Judge, Nellore being the Estate Abolition Tribunal, Nellore, as illegal, arbitrary. Questioning the action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. 6. This Court vide order dated 21.07.2023 while issuing notice before admission, has granted direction, reads as under: “…..However, lease was granted. Hence, the respondents No.5 and 6 shall not carry on the mining activities in respect of land to an extent of Ac 7.96 cents in Sy.No.39/part; Ac 2.90 cents in Sy No.49/part; Ac 9.36 cents in Sy No.56/1 of Jogipallii village, Sydapalli Mandal, SPSR Nellore District pending further orders.” 7. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.1 to 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.1 to 3. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that the Petitioner had filed WP No.16433 of 2022 before this Hon'ble High Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 20.09.2022 with the following direction: “In the circumstances, it must be held that in view of the earlier directions of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.5985 of 2021 dated 11.02.2022, which are binding on the petitioners as well as the respondents, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 not to take any further steps for execution of lease deed in favour of 5 th respondent and the firm in which the 6th respondent is a Managing Partner, till the dispute relating to the said lease is disposed of finally". Against the said orders, the 5 th respondent had filed WA No.755 of 2022 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 13.10.2022 directing the Settlement Officer-cum-Joint Collector, SPSR Nellore District to decide the matter at the earliest, preferably, within a period of six months. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Joint Collector/Settlement Officer Nellore i.e., 4 th respondent has disposed of CMA No.11 of 2016 as follows: "In the above circumstances of the case, the possession and enjoyment of the land by the claimants before the crucial date 01.07.1945 have to prove by the claimants to get a ryothwaripatta w/s 15(1) which is lacking in this case. Moreover, the continuous occupation through the specified date 01.07.1945upto now is not proved by adducing any documentary evidence of otherwise in this regard. As such the claim of the petitioner's u/s 15(1) for the schedule mentioned land is not acceptable and the petitions are dismissed accordingly. In the result the claim is dismissed. An appeal lies against this order before the Estate Abolition Tribunal, District Court, Nellore within (60) days from the date of receipt of this order". It is further stated in the affidavit that after disposal of CMA No.11 of 2016 by the Joint Collector/Settlement Officer – 4 th respodnent on 4.2.2023 the then Asst. An appeal lies against this order before the Estate Abolition Tribunal, District Court, Nellore within (60) days from the date of receipt of this order". It is further stated in the affidavit that after disposal of CMA No.11 of 2016 by the Joint Collector/Settlement Officer – 4 th respodnent on 4.2.2023 the then Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Erstwhile Nellore i.e., 3 rd respondent has executed the quarry lease deeds as detailed below: S.No. Name of the Grantee Location Extent in Hectares Work Order No & Date of DM & G 1 Sri Siddeswara Minerals Mg P: A. Navananandulaiah Sy.No.49/P of Jogipalli Village, Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore 01.174 2669/P/2017 dated 20.03.2023 2 Sri Siddeswara Minerals Mg P: A. Navananandulaiah Sy No.56/1 of Jogipalli Village Sydapauram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District 03.791 2670/P/2017 dated 06.04.2023 3 Sri Vigneswara Minerals Mg. PA Srinivasulu Sy.No.39/P of Jogipalli Village, Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore 03.220 106/P/2018 dated 20.03.2023 It is further stated that as per the direction of this Court in WP No.18094 of 2023 , the 3 rd respondent has sent a letter vide Lr.No.2670/P/2017, dated 31.07.2023 has instructed the respondents No.5 and 6 to stop quarrying operations immediately and accordingly stopped. 8. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.4, while adopting the averments made in the counter of respondents No.1 to 3, stated that, M/s Sri Siddeswara Minerals a partnership Firm was granted a Quarry lease over 1.174 Hectares of land in Survey No.49/P of Jogipalli Village of Sydapuram Mandal vide the Proceedings No.1457/D8/2020, dated 22.06.2022 of the Director of Mines & Geology, Government of A.P. Thereafter, the ADMG at Nellore gave a Work Order by his Proceedings No.2669/P/2017 dated 20-03-2023 for the said granted quarry lease, which is valid from 20-03-2023 till 19-03- 2043 with a precondition to submit statutory permissions such as approved mining, environmental clearance, consent for establishment, etc. Pursuant thereto. M/s Sri Siddeswara Minerals duly obtained an approved mining plan, environmental clearance, and Consent for Establishment and submitted it to the authorities of Mines & Geology. Consequently, thereupon, the ADMG at Nellore has permitted the said lessee to undertake mining operations vide his Proceedings No.2670/P/2017 dated 06-04-2023. M/s Sri Siddeswara Minerals has consequently invested big money and procured machinery and equipment and engaged workforce and undertook mining operations in accordance with the terms and conditions of the executed lease deed. Consequently, thereupon, the ADMG at Nellore has permitted the said lessee to undertake mining operations vide his Proceedings No.2670/P/2017 dated 06-04-2023. M/s Sri Siddeswara Minerals has consequently invested big money and procured machinery and equipment and engaged workforce and undertook mining operations in accordance with the terms and conditions of the executed lease deed. It is further stated that the lease of the 4th Respondent was surrounded by quarry leases granted to some others. To the east of this quarry lease M/s Lakshmi Venkateswara Swamy Mines & Minerals was granted a quarry lease in Survey No.48/2 of Jogipalli Village. To the south one P. Suseelamma is holding a quarry lease in Survey Nos. 47/1 & 2. To the M/s Sri Siddeswara Minerals is also holding a quarry lease over 9.36 acres in Survey No.56/1 of Jogipalli Village. To its South-East, Lakshmi VenkateswaraSwamy Mines & Minerals was holding a quarry lease in Survey No.76 of Jogipalli Village. To its South, Sri Siddeswara Minerals is holding a quarry lease in Survey No.49 and P. Suseelamma is holding a quarry lease in Survey No.47 of Jogipalli Village. To the South-West, Sri Kiran is holding a quarry lease in Survey Nos. 41, 42 & 43 and SBG Minerals is holding a quarry lease in Survey No.33. To its South-West, M/s Durga Minerals Corporation is holding a quarry lease in Survey Nos.39 & 40. M/s Vigneswara Minerals is holding a quarry lease in Survey No.39/P in the South- West. All the said leases were under operation. None of those leases were challenged by the Writ Petitioner. Therefore, there are no bonafides in the writ petitions and hence prayed to dismiss the same. 9. The counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent No.5 and 6 adopting the averments made in the counter of the 4 th respondent. 10. Heard Sri C. Subodh and Sri G. Venkateswarlu, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Mines &Geology, learned Government leader for Revenue and Sri T.Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 11. On hearing, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petitions, submits that, even though, the disputes with respect to subject land before the Prl. District Judge-cum-Estate Abolition Tribunal, Nellore with respect to same land is pending, the respondent authorities granted lease for mining in favour of the respondents 5 and 6. 11. On hearing, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petitions, submits that, even though, the disputes with respect to subject land before the Prl. District Judge-cum-Estate Abolition Tribunal, Nellore with respect to same land is pending, the respondent authorities granted lease for mining in favour of the respondents 5 and 6. It is submitted that, the Act provides statutory appeal and before the disposal of the appeal, the 3rd respondent is not justified in granting mining lease. Further, if 5 th and 6 th respondents are permitted to do mining activities in the subject lands pursuant to the leases granted in their favour, even the petitioners succeed in the appeals pending before the Prl. District Judge-cum- Estate Abolition Tribunal, Nellore, the petitioners will be not in a position to utilize the land. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners requests this Court to declare the action of the respondents in granting mining lease to the 5th respondent vide proceedings 2669/P/2017, dated 20.03.2023 and proceedings 2670/P/2017, dt.06.04.2023 and to the 6th respondent vide proceedings 106 (P)/2018, dt.20.03.2023 with respect to land which is subject matter of CMA.No.04/2023 on the file of Prl. District Judge, Nellore (being the EstateAbolition Tribunal, Nellore, as illegal and arbitrary and prayed to allow the writ petitions by setting aside the impugned proceedings. 12. On the other hand, learned Government Pleaders appearing for the respondents also while reiterated the contents made in the counters, opposed for allowing the writ petitions and prayed to dismiss the same, 13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.5 and 6 while reiterating the contents made in the counters, submits that,the quarry lease was granted on the Government land. None of the petitioner either in W.P No. 18094 of 2024 or in W.P No. 14375 of 2023 have made a claim over land in Survey No.39/P. Aduru Vengaiah's claim in Survey No. 49 and 56/1 was rejected. Aduru Vengaiah has 4 children and the petitioner in W.P No.14375 of 2023 is the 2nd daughter of AduruVengaiah. No other legal heirs have made any claim. He submits that total land at dispute before the 4th Respondent is 236-00 acres. When such a complex of serious complicated claims at dispute were being adjudicated in the subordinate courts below since prior to 30-05-1970 granting relief which was sought is not tenable. No other legal heirs have made any claim. He submits that total land at dispute before the 4th Respondent is 236-00 acres. When such a complex of serious complicated claims at dispute were being adjudicated in the subordinate courts below since prior to 30-05-1970 granting relief which was sought is not tenable. More so, the petitioner in W.P No. 18094 of 2023 is not a claimant before the settlement officer at Nellore & all the aforesaid aspects were not dealt with by this Hon'ble Court while addressing and disposing WP No.5985/2021 and 16433/2022. He further submits that the grant of relief in these writ petitions are also against public interest and public policy. The disputed land along with other lands in other Survey numbers were in mining operations and are in mining zone as stated above. 14. To support his contentions learned counsel for the respondents No.5 and 6 has placed reliance on a catena of decisions reported in (i) Jain Samiti and another v. Alleged Committee of Management , [ (1996) 3 SCC 11 ]; (ii) In Mohan Pandey and another vs. Usha Rani Rajgari (SMT) and others, [ (1992) 4 SCC 61 ]; (iii) In a case of State of Bihar and others v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. , [ (2002) 1 SCC 216 ]; (iv) In Commissioner of Income Tax and others v ChhabilDass Agarwal, [(204) 1 SCC 603]; (v) In Gregory Patrao and Ors v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited and others , [2022 Live Law (SC) 602] and (vi) In another case reported in Ratilal JhaverabhaiParmar and others V. State of Gujarat and others, [(2024) SCC Online SC 2985] and also has relied upon a common judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court passed in WA No.327 & 328 of 2023, wherein it was held that “since serious disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided on mere interpretation of the terms of the subject contract and on the basis of the documents already available on record, are involved in the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single judge has rightly refused to entertain the writ petitions and left it open to the writ petitioner to avail the remedy before the civil court by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act.” 15. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents while relying upon the above decisions, submits that, these writ petitions are against the public policy and public interest and are not maintainable and hence prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. 16. Perused the material on record. 17. The State and the Union Government earn big revenue in mining operations to the gain of public exchequer. Thus, this litigation since about 5 decades still being lurched to an infinite time would result in a big loss to public exchequer and the Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 in W.P No. 18094 of 2023 and Respondent No.4 in W.P No.14375 of 2023, who were granted quarry lease and also obtained the statutory permissions such as Environmental Clearance (EC), Consent for Establishment (CFE), Consent for Operations (CFO) and started mining operations and were paying NORMAL SEIGNIORAGE FEE (ROYALTY), premium CONSIDERATION AMOUNT, MERIT, DMF, DEAD RENT, etc and the public would lose huge revenue with this windfall litigation. Hence, this Court is of the view that these writ petitions are against the public policy and public interest and not maintainable. The Petitioners can institute a suit or seek relief in the filed CMAs for the preservation of land properties. 18. On a perusal of the above and on hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the view that, where the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try a suit, the High Court cannot convert itself into an appellate or revisional court and interfere with the interim/miscellaneous orders of the civil Court. The writ jurisdiction is meant for doing justice between the parties where it cannot be done in any other forum. Therefore, this Court found no merit in the instant petitions and devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. 20. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.