ORDER : 1. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for Ms. Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri M.R.K. Chakaravarthy, learned counsel for the 9 th respondent (in W.P.No.6528 of 2025). 2. The instant writ petitions are filed by the petitioners, challenging the proceedings of the 5 th respondent granting quarry lease in favour of the 9 th respondent. - 3. It is contended that the 6 th petitioner has inherited the subject property from her stepsister. 4. The brief facts of the case, as per the writ petitioners, are: In a family partition, the petitioner's father, Palakuri Punnaiah, was allotted an extent of 9 Acres in Sy.No.473 of Perecherla Village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District. His brother, Sri Palakuri Venkateswarlu, and his sister also received equal shares. Petitioner’s father had two wives. Through his first wife, Kanthamma, he had two daughters, Yerrakula Ramulamma and Annapurna; through his second wife, Thirupathamma, he had one daughter, Kamalamma. He had gifted the said property in favour of his eldest daughter, Yerrakula Ramulamma, through his first wife, through a registered gift deed dated 21.08.1971. Yerrakula Ramulamma sold an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in favour of third parties and an extent of Ac.0.26 cents in favour of third parties. Ramulamma died intestate, and the 6 th petitioner, claiming to be the sole surviving heir of her sister, Yerrakula Ramulamma, approached the revenue authorities seeking mutation of her name in the revenue records. On 04.02.2024, the revenue authorities have passed orders, mutating the name of the 6 th petitioner in the revenue records. It is contended that she subsequently gifted the subject properties to her daughters and grandchildren. On coming to know that the 9 th respondent had been carrying out quarrying operations on the subject land, the petitioners obtained information under the RTI Act and came to know of the subject mining lease granted in favour of the 9 th respondent over an extent of Ac.1.00 cents. The said mining lease was alleged to have been granted based on an NOC issued by the 8 th respondent. It is alleged that the 9 th respondent and his brother, under the guise of conducting quarrying in their respective lands, are quarrying in the petitioner's lands. The said mining lease was alleged to have been granted based on an NOC issued by the 8 th respondent. It is alleged that the 9 th respondent and his brother, under the guise of conducting quarrying in their respective lands, are quarrying in the petitioner's lands. It is further stated that they have laid claim before the revenue authorities in respect of the petitioners' lands and that they have also filed a Civil Suit. - 5. The 9th respondent filed a counter-affidavit. The facts regarding the family partition between the family members of Palukuri Punnaiah and the transfer by way of gift of the entire extent of Ac.9.00 cents in favour of Yerrakula Ramulamma, the eldest daughter of Punnaiah, are not in dispute. It is stated that Ramulamma, during her lifetime, had sold away the land through different sale deeds between 1986 and 1992 and was issued a pattadar pass book for the remaining extent of Ac.6.62 cents out of which an extent of Ac.3.00 cents was sold in favour of one Dandamudi Venkata Rathaiah under Registered Sale Deed No.3883 of 1998 and Ac.1.00 cents in favour of M/s Sri Sainath Stone Crushers, 9 th respondent herein is one of its partners and an extent of Ac.0.26 cents was sold separately in 2006. She died in 2008. 6. The learned Senior Counsel Sri K.S.Murthy appearing for Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the 6 th petitioner is the sole surviving legal heir of the late Yerrakula Ramulamma and she has succeeded to the property. However, the unofficial respondents have obtained the quarry lease without valid title to the property. Under the guise of the mineral quarry lease, are excavating the land of the petitioners. - 7. The learned counsel for the 9 th respondent argues that Yerrakula Ramulamma did not have any property by the date of her death. She had sold the entire property, leaving an extent of Ac.1.26 cents for road purposes. It is further stated that after the purchase in 1999, the 9 th respondent, along with Palukuri Venkateswarlu and another, established a crusher unit in 2018, applied for excavation of gravel, and thereafter sought a quarry lease for road metal and gravel in the subject land. After taking no objection from the Revenue and Forest Department, the quarry lease was granted in their favour. After taking no objection from the Revenue and Forest Department, the quarry lease was granted in their favour. The 8 th respondent granted permission for gravel and road metal in 2023. It is further stated that the petitioners have no right to claim any share in the properties belonging to late Yerrakula Ramulamma. It is further argued that the registered gift deeds executed by the 6 th petitioner are stated as if they are her property, derived from her maternal family as pasupukunkuma, whereas in the writ petition, she is claiming through inheritance. 8. Considered the rival submissions. 9. From the material, it appears that the dispute between the petitioners and unofficial respondent is in the nature of claiming title to the subject property. The writ petitioners are claiming through inheritance-intestate succession from late Yerrakula Ramulamma, and the unofficial respondents claim through the registered sale deeds executed by late Yerrakula Ramulamma. It also appears that a Civil Suit is pending between the parties. This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not adjudicate title disputes which essentially requires long drawn process of appreciation of evidence and recording a finding of fact, regarding title and possession of the respective parties. In the said context it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by LRs. and Another Vs. B.D. Agarwal & Others , (2003) 6 SCC 230 , wherein it is observed as under: “28. A writ petition is filed in public law remedy. The High Court while exercising a power of judicial review is concerned with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of an order passed by the State or a statutory authority. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for resolution of a private law dispute as contradistinguished from a dispute involving public law character. It is also well settled that a writ remedy is not available for resolution of a property or a title dispute……” 10. It is further relevant to note that the 6 th petitioner has submitted her objections to the Tahsildar vide representation dated 07.10.2022. The same were considered and rejected as not sustainable, vide two separate proceedings issued in the case of both unofficial respondents in both the writ petitions. It is further relevant to note that the 6 th petitioner has submitted her objections to the Tahsildar vide representation dated 07.10.2022. The same were considered and rejected as not sustainable, vide two separate proceedings issued in the case of both unofficial respondents in both the writ petitions. None of the proceedings of the Tahsildar rejecting objections filed by the petitioner and granting no objection in favour of the unofficial respondents were challenged by the petitioner at any point in time. 11. Reliance of the petitioner on the subsequent proceedings of the Tahsildar, dated 13.02.2025, recommending that the NOC granted in favour of the unofficial respondent be kept in abeyance, it is to be observed that as noted in the said proceedings, appear to indicate that the abeyance order was passed based on the same material that was placed before him while issuing the proceedings of NOC. No new material has been placed before the Tahsildar in support of their plea to keep earlier proceedings in abeyance. - 12. Since a series of applications were being filed by the petitioners and the 9 th respondent, the Tahsildar, probably, requested the Mines Department to keep the NOC in abeyance and advised the parties to approach the competent Civil Court. The functions of the Tahsildar in granting NOCs for mining leases are quasi-judicial. Given the same, under the guise of taking action on application/objection of the petitioners filed for the second or third time, which are same as that of their earlier objections filed during the initial proceedings for granting NOC, the Tahsildar cannot keep his order under abeyance; at best, it can only be set aside or revised by an appropriate appellate authority, if some body seeks for such relief for sufficient reasons and on the basis of sufficient material. Further, it is stated that the same has been passed without notice to the 9 th respondent. Based on those proceedings of the Tahsildar, keeping the “NOC” in abeyance, the petitioners cannot seek cancellation of the mining lease granted in favour of the unofficial respondent. 13. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. - As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.