A writ petition under Article 226 cannot resolve private law disputes involving title and possession, which require factual determination.

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. 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