ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the 1 st respondent in Memo No. 12173/M.II(1)/2007-2, dated 17.02.2009 and pass such other orders....” 2. This Court vide order dated 13.03.2009, while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim suspension as prayer for. However, the same shall be subject to the result of O.S No.26 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. 3. Heard Mr. N. Nirmal Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. N. Shoba, learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the land in Sy.No.118 of R.L.Puram, Cheemakurthi Mandal, Prakasam District to an extent of Ac. 26.16 cents is the subject of the matter of the suit in O.S.No.183 of 1932 in between the family members of the original pattadars, which was ended by way of compromise and final decree was passed on 25.09.1940 by the District Musif Court, Ongole. One Ms. Adilaxmamma and others have executed General Power of Attorney (in short GPA) dated 10.06.1992 in favour of one Mr. A. Venkatramaiah in respect of the land in Sy.No.118, who executed a lease deed dated 12.11.1998 in respect of Ac. 2.50 cents in favour of the petitioner along with one Mr. A. Srinivasan, since then the 1 st petitioner has been inducted into possession and enjoyment of the same. 5. The petitioner has applied for quarry lease in order to do quarrying of black galaxy granite in the leased land of Ac. 2.50 cents on 14.06.2005. Subsequently the 3 rd respondent also submitted application for the same land on 02.11.2005 on the ground that he purchased the land of Ac. 2.50 cents in Sy.No.118 of R.L.Puram under four sale deeds in the year 1998 and they are entitled for the quarry lease. The Tahsildar, Cheemakurthi issued proceedings dated 13.12.2006 made recommendation to issue No Objection Proceedings in favour of the 1 st petitioner and accordingly the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently the 2 nd respondent passed order dated 12.01.2007 granting quarry lease for Ac. 2.25 cents in Sy.No.118(P) of R.L.Puram, Cheemakurthi Mandal, Prakasam District for a period of 20 years. Subsequently the 2 nd respondent passed order dated 12.01.2007 granting quarry lease for Ac. 2.25 cents in Sy.No.118(P) of R.L.Puram, Cheemakurthi Mandal, Prakasam District for a period of 20 years. The observation by the 2 nd respondent that quarry is subject to finality of the suit in O.S.No.183 of 1992 and O.S.No.96 of 2006, but said suits are not pending and the 1 st petitioner is not party therein. Pursuant to the order of the 2 nd respondent dated 12.01.2007, the petitioner started quarry operations by investigating huge amount. The 3 rd respondent filed an Appeal questioning the order dated 12.01.2007 of the 2 nd respondent. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ongole for grant of permanent injunction as the documents submitted by the 3 rd respondent are fictitious. While the matter stood thus, the 1 st respondent passed order dated 04.05.2007 has been set aside the order dated 12.01.2007 and it has been ordered that after the title disputes are resolved, the quarrying licence can be issued. Assailing the same, W.P.No.11388 of 2007 has been filed and the same has been set aside on 17.01.2008 and the matter was remitted back to the 1 st respondent for fresh disposal. Aggrieved by the same 3 rd respondent filed W.A.No.421 of 2008 and the Hon’ble Division Bench directed the 1 st respondent to hear the parties and take final decision. The 1 st respondent kept the matter pending nearly six months and passed order dated 17.02.2009 against allowing the appeal of the 3 rd respondent on same grounds on which it was allowed earlier on 04.05.2007, whereby the quarry lease granted in favour of the 2 nd respondent stood set aside once again. Assailing the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 6. Per contra, 3 rd respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that Sy.No. 118 of R.L.Puram Village of Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District is of an extent of Ac. 26.16 cents and which is not the subject of the suit in O.S.No.183 of 1932 and the same was ended in compromise on 25.09.1940. Per contra, 3 rd respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that Sy.No. 118 of R.L.Puram Village of Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District is of an extent of Ac. 26.16 cents and which is not the subject of the suit in O.S.No.183 of 1932 and the same was ended in compromise on 25.09.1940. In fact, one Telikepalli Ramaswamy Sarma filed a suit for partition and during pendency of the said suit, the resurvey numbers were not there, as R.L,.Puram Village is a whole Inam Village, which was taken over by the Government under the provisions of Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 and resurvey was done in or about the year 1960. It is further contended that by virtue of compromise decree passed in O.S.No.183 of 1932 an extent of Ac. 5.84 cents in Sy.No.118 fell to the share of legal heirs of Telikapalli Satyanarayana and Srinivasa Rao. In fact, they are not parties to the suit in O.S.No.183 of 1932. 7. It is further contended that the 3 rd respondent applied in his patta land for grant of quarry lease for granite in Sy.No.118(P) to an extent of Ac. 2.50 cents out of Ac. 3.48 cents. After due verification by revenue authorities has submitted a report stating that the subject land is a patta land purchased under Registered Sale Deeds. The subject land was in possession and enjoyment of the vendors of the 3 rd respondent for past more than 20 years. After purchase, the 3 rd respondent applied for grant of No Objection Certificate and has been issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 29.12.2005 after due enquiry. Suppressing the said fact, the petitioner has obtained No Objection Certificate. The petitioner is not supported any documents and invited speculative litigation. The 3 rd respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 2007 for grant of injunction, which is pending. Since the 1 st petitioner removed the Magazine boxes and damages the structures a criminal case has been registered vide Crime No.14 of 2007 of Chimakurthy P.S and he was arrested on 10.02.2007. The 1 st respondent rightly passed order vide proceedings No. 240655/R3(2)/2005 directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. The petitioner never started any quarrying operations as he is not in possession of the schedule land. The petitioner is consistently dragging the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2007. The 1 st respondent rightly passed order vide proceedings No. 240655/R3(2)/2005 directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. The petitioner never started any quarrying operations as he is not in possession of the schedule land. The petitioner is consistently dragging the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2007. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Perused the record. 9. It is the contention of the 3 rd respondent that the petitioner consistently dodging the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2007 filed by the 3 rd respondent since then and finally decreed vide judgment dated 10.11.2014. Further, the petitioner has no valid documents to prove the title with regard to subject land and also the subject land is not the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.183 of 1932. After due verification and survey conducted by the revenue authorities has issued No Objection Certificate in favour of the 3 rd respondent. The petitioner has suppressed the real facts and obtained No Objection Certificate with bogus documents. 10. The petitioners have filed Commissioner’s report in O.S.No.26 of 2007 and also copy of final decree in O.S.No.183 of 1932, so also counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent in Appeal No.1219/M.II(1)/2007-1 before the Appellate Authority (Mines and Geology) and other proceedings issued in favour of the 1 st petitioner by the official respondents in support of their contentions. 11. The 3 rd respondent filed a Memo dated 19.10.2024 stating that the petitioner questioning the proceedings of the 1 st respondent Memo dated 17.02.2009 wherein the Appeal filed by the 3 rd respondent has been allowed the quarry lease granted in favour of the petitioner was set aside as arbitrary and illegal. On 13.03.2009,this Court suspending the impugned order, but the same shall be subject to the result of the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. But the said suit was allowed on merits on 10.11.2014. In support of their contentions, the copies of documents have been filed. 12. The suit in O.S.No.26 of 2007 has been filed by the 3 rd respondent for grant of permanent injunction against the 1 st petitioner in respect of subject land i.e., Sy.No.118 an extent of Ac. 2.50 cents situated in R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. In support of their contentions, the copies of documents have been filed. 12. The suit in O.S.No.26 of 2007 has been filed by the 3 rd respondent for grant of permanent injunction against the 1 st petitioner in respect of subject land i.e., Sy.No.118 an extent of Ac. 2.50 cents situated in R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. In the impugned proceedings dated 17.02.2009 it is clearly stated in Para 27 and 28, which reproduced hereunder: 27. Further it is observed that Sri B.V.Subba Rao may be holding a registered sale deed from the G.P.A Holder, who has obtained a G.P.A from the legal heirs of the Joint Pattadars, but he failed to produce the holding of pattas in favour of Joint Pattadars. Further, it is also not known what steps Sri B.V.Subba Rao has taken to protect his interest over this disputed land and why he is not getting impleaded in the suits pending in the Civil Courts over this disputed land. Further, the basis of the statement that O.S.No. 96 of 2006 is a collusive one is not found. 28. Further Sri B.V.Subba Rao may not be a party to O.S.No.96 of 2006, but in the said suit the dispute is as regards to the land over an extent of Ac. 2.50 cents in Sy.No.118/P and the judgment in the said suit is final and binding with reference to ownership”. 13. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in the light of aforementioned reasons, the petitioner is entitled to claim relief as prayed for. 14. It is the contention of the petitioner that the 1 st respondent failed to take any steps for protecting the interest of the petitioners over the disputed land. Further the learned single judge as well as the Division Bench were well aware of the grounds on which the 1 st respondent has rested its earlier order dated 4.5.2007 and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration by the 1 st respondent keeping in view the possession of the rival parties over the disputed land. The 1 st respondent did not examine the issue in that perspective but has reiterated the same grounds on which its earlier order was passed. Thus the order of the 1 st respondent is contrary to the directions given this Court and is vitiated. 15. The 1 st respondent did not examine the issue in that perspective but has reiterated the same grounds on which its earlier order was passed. Thus the order of the 1 st respondent is contrary to the directions given this Court and is vitiated. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court, in the interest of justice, is inclined to allow the writ petition while making the interim order as absolute. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings of the 1 st respondent in Memo No.12173/M.II(1)/2007-2, dated 17.02.2009 are hereby quashed. However, the same shall be subject to result of the Civil Suits pending in between the petitioner and the respondents. No costs. 17. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.