JUDGMENT : As these two Writ Appeals arise out of a common order and since the parties and the issues raised in both these Writ Appeals are common, they are being disposed of, by way of this common Judgment. 2. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M. Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt. S. Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing from the office of the learned Advocate General for the official respondents. 3. The facts, in the present cases, have been extensively set out in the order of the learned Single Judge and we do not propose to set out the facts, in extenso, in this order also. However, a few facts are required to be set out before considering the contentions raised by either side. 4. The facts according to the appellants are as follows: a) The appellants claim to be either legal heirs or purchasers of persons, who were in occupation and enjoyment of various extents of land, in Sy.Nos.46-57, 173-182, 211, 192-207 of Daminedu Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. The total extent of these lands is Ac.175.00. b) Daminedu Village is an Inam village, falling within the ambit of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”). This village was surveyed in the year 1961. As there were a few errors in the survey, a fresh survey was again conducted in the years 2006 and 2009. c) The predecessors of the appellants are said to have filed claims before the Settlement Officer, under the Act and these have remained pending. Apart from this, the appellants 22, 23 & 26 in W.A.No.563 of 2025 are said to have filed claim applications before the Settlement Officer for grant of Ryotwari pattas. However, these applications were rejected by an order, dated 24.05.2008, bearing L.Dis.No.F6/557/08, on the ground that the applications, which had been filed after 24.04.1983, cannot be considered. The appellants are said to have filed various representations before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration as well as the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Hon’ble Ministers, for orders being passed on the pending applications, for grant of Ryotwari pattas and directions had been issued to the Revenue Authorities to undertake such an exercise. The appellants are said to have filed various representations before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration as well as the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Hon’ble Ministers, for orders being passed on the pending applications, for grant of Ryotwari pattas and directions had been issued to the Revenue Authorities to undertake such an exercise. d) The lands under the possession and cultivation of the appellants, was classified, by mistake, as “Assessed Waste Dry” lands, in the survey conducted in the year 1961. When this mistake was pointed out, a fresh survey was conducted in the year 2006 and repeated in the year 2009. The records of the survey, conducted in the year 2009, would show that the appellants herein were in possession and enjoyment of the lands. As no steps were being taken to process the applications, for grant of Ryotwari pattas, the appellants in W.A.No.563 of 2025, had approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.1499 of 2010, for a direction to the Revenue Authorities to act in accordance with the memo No.52300/JA-2/2008-1, dated 17.10.2008 and consequently, pass orders for issuance of Ryotwari pattas in favour of the appellants. e) The Authorities, even while the applications of the appellants were pending, had transferred and handed over Ac.35.53 cents of land situated in some of the survey numbers, mentioned above, to the A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited and subsequently, to Tirupati Municipal Corporation, which is impermissible and to set aside memo No.APSHL/Land Allocation/2008, dated 15.06.2009, under which the land had been transferred. 5. The Revenue Authorities filed counter affidavits in which the aforesaid version of the appellants was disputed. The facts, according to the respondents, are as follows: a) According to the claim of the appellants, 26 ryots had interest in the land. However 58 persons are now claiming right and interest in the land without explaining as to how these 58 persons have succeeded to the interest of the 26 original ryots. b) The Daminedu Estate Village was taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Act, on 25.09.1961. At the time of taking over of the estate, a detailed survey was conducted and fair Adangal came to be prepared and surveyed on 30.08.1956, after taking into account the survey numbers available in the pre-abolition adangals. b) The Daminedu Estate Village was taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Act, on 25.09.1961. At the time of taking over of the estate, a detailed survey was conducted and fair Adangal came to be prepared and surveyed on 30.08.1956, after taking into account the survey numbers available in the pre-abolition adangals. The final survey operations were completed during the year 1962 and published in the A.P. Gazette on 15.02.1962. The village maps, FMB sketches and fair adangals for Damined Village and the neighbouring Yogimallavaram Village would show these lands to be assessed waste dry lands without any person being in occupation of the lands. c) The persons in occupation of the lands, in other survey numbers of Daminedu Village had filed their claims for grant of Ryotwari pattas either on the ground that they were ryots in occupation of the lands or as land holders. All these claims were considered and settled. No claim for grant of Ryotwari patta, in relation to these survey numbers, in Daminedu Village, remains to be decided. No claim of any nature had been made by any person in relation to the survey numbers being claimed by the appellants. d) The Government had utilized a part of the land, in the year 2000, for forming of a 150 ft. bypass road, from Chandragiri to Renigunta, and no compensation of any nature was paid to any person as this land was Government land. A further extent of Ac.6.76 cents of land in various survey numbers was used for forming another bypass road. Similarly, a large part of the land, being claimed by the appellants, had been utilized for construction of houses under the Urban Housing Programme. The District Collector, Chittoor, by various proceedings, in the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 had directed lands to be handed over to the A.P. Urban Housing Corporation and physical possession of the land was handed over to this Corporation on various occasions from 2005 to 2007. After taking over the possession, the State Housing Corporation had constructed buildings, which were allotted to beneficiaries, who are presently living in these buildings. e) While these works were going on, the 2 nd appellant in W.A.No.544 of 2025 had moved W.P.No.12326 of 2005, contending that he had been dispossessed without following due process of law. After taking over the possession, the State Housing Corporation had constructed buildings, which were allotted to beneficiaries, who are presently living in these buildings. e) While these works were going on, the 2 nd appellant in W.A.No.544 of 2025 had moved W.P.No.12326 of 2005, contending that he had been dispossessed without following due process of law. This Writ Petition was disposed of, on 31.01.2006, on the ground that lands had already been handed over to A.P. State Housing Corporation and no further relief could be granted. In this Writ Petition, there is no mention of any pendency of applications for grant of Ryotwari pattas. The extent of land, so utilized for construction of houses, was Ac.45.94 cents of land. Certain other persons, who had filed implead petitions, in W.P.No.1499 of 2010, had claimed that they had been allotted pattas in some of these lands, admeasuring Ac.4.75 cents and Ac.5.39 cents of land and as such the appellants could not lay any claim on this land. 6. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing both sides, was pleased to dismiss both these Writ Petitions, by way of a common order, dated 06.01.2025. 7. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival submissions, had held that no material had been placed before him to demonstrate the pendency of any applications for grant of Ryotwari patta; the documents that are said to reflect the survey conducted in the year 2006 and 2009 do not bear any signature or proceeding number and as such cannot be accepted; the memo bearing No.52300/JA-2-2008-1, dated 17.10.2008, does not contain any direction to any of the Authorities to issue Ryotwari pattas or to consider applications for Ryotwari pattas and as such no relief of that nature can be granted. 8. Aggrieved by the said common order, the appellants have moved the present set of Writ Appeals. 9. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M. Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the finding of the learned Single Judge, that there is no material before him to demonstrate that applications for Ryotwari pattas were pending or that the appellants had been compensated or claim over the land is incorrect. 9. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M. Venkata Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the finding of the learned Single Judge, that there is no material before him to demonstrate that applications for Ryotwari pattas were pending or that the appellants had been compensated or claim over the land is incorrect. The learned Senior Counsel would draw the attention of this Court to copies of sale deeds, said to have been executed in the years 1908, 1913, 1938, 1952, 1960, 1964 & 1965, to contend that these documents relate to the lands which are now being claimed by the appellants. He would submit that these documents demonstrate that the appellants or their predecessors were in possession of the lands and were cultivating the lands. 10. The learned Senior Counsel also took this Court through the reports, that are said to have been prepared on the basis of survey conducted in the year 2006 and 2009. In these reports, the names of the appellants are reflected as being in possession of various extents of land in these survey numbers. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the applications filed, under the Right to Information Act, for furnishing the records relating to these surveys is not being furnished. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that a memo for inspection , given by the learned counsel for the appellants, under Writ Rules, for inspection of the records, has also not been complied. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that applications for grant of Ryotwari pattas, under Section 11 of the Act, can be filed at any point of time and there is no limitation for filing of such applications. He would also submit that the correspondence, which has been filed along with the Writ Petitions as well as the Writ Appeals, would show that claims have been pending since a long time and as such the contention that there were no claims cannot be accepted. 11. Smt. S. Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader, contends that there are no applications, for grant of Ryotwari patta, for the survey numbers mentioned above. She would submit that the appellants have not produced any document or any material to demonstrate the pendency of any such applications. 11. Smt. S. Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader, contends that there are no applications, for grant of Ryotwari patta, for the survey numbers mentioned above. She would submit that the appellants have not produced any document or any material to demonstrate the pendency of any such applications. She contends that, except the bald statement of the appellants that, some applications are pending, without giving any details, there is no proof of such applications. The learned Special Government Pleader would also contend that even otherwise, the appellants have not produced a single document to show that either the appellants or their alleged purchasers were in possession of these lands, prior to the Act being passed. 12. The learned Special Government Pleader would draw the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, in W.P.No.3049 of 2010, wherein it is stated that only 5 cases are pending adjudication, under Section 11 of the Act, in relation to the land in Daminedu Village, and that no claim is being before the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Chittoor, in relation to the lands claimed by the appellants. She submits that no rejoinder has been filed denying this statement of the Tahsildar. 13. As far as the deeds of sale, which have been produced before this Court, are concerned, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that none of these deeds of sale had been mentioned in any prior litigation and had not been placed before the learned Single Judge. She would contend that these documents cannot be looked into as they have been produced for the first time in these appeals. Consideration of the Court: 14. It is an admitted fact that the Daminedu Village is an Inam Estate Village which falls within the ambit of the Act. Under the Act, the ryots and land holders, who have been in possession of land, situated in an estate, and were in cultivation, would be entitled to grant of Ryotwari pattas. Such Ryotwari pattas would be granted, only if either an application under Section 11(A) is filed by the cultivating ryot or an application under Section 15 is filed by the land holder. No Ryotwari patta would be granted in the absence of such applications. 15. Such Ryotwari pattas would be granted, only if either an application under Section 11(A) is filed by the cultivating ryot or an application under Section 15 is filed by the land holder. No Ryotwari patta would be granted in the absence of such applications. 15. The appellants claim that their predecessors, who are either by their ancestors or transferors, had been in possession of the land in the survey numbers mentioned above and had been cultivating these lands. The appellants also contend that either themselves or their predecessors had made applications for grant of Ryotwari patta under these provisions. 16. The respondents contend that the land in question was assessed waste dry land and the survey operations, completed in the year 1962, recorded these lands as assessed waste dry lands. The classification of the land as assessed waste dry would mean that the land is not under cultivation and that no person is in possession of this land. The appellants have not produced a single scrap of paper to show that either themselves or their predecessors were in possession and were cultivating the land before the Act came into force. The appellants also did not dispute the classification of land, made in the year 1962. The appellants contend that the first time they had raised any issue, in this regard, is in the year 2006, when a survey is said to have been conducted to allegedly rectify the mistake in the survey records, since 1962. 17. The question of grant of Ryotwari patta, would not arise, in the absence of any documentary proof, demonstrating the possession of the appellants over the said land. No such proof has been placed before this court. 18. The appellants claim that their predecessors had filed applications for grant of Ryotwari patta in and around the time when the Act came into force. However, the appellants have not given any details of the applications that are said to have been filed. Neither the details of the registration number of the applications nor the names of the applicants, nor the details of land for which land applications had been made, have been pleaded or mentioned by the appellants till today. In the absence of such details, the contention of the appellants that such applications are pending cannot be accepted. 19. Neither the details of the registration number of the applications nor the names of the applicants, nor the details of land for which land applications had been made, have been pleaded or mentioned by the appellants till today. In the absence of such details, the contention of the appellants that such applications are pending cannot be accepted. 19. The appellants rely upon a table said to have been prepared on the basis of the survey conducted in the year 2006 and 2009. As pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, neither of the tables, which have been placed before this Court, contain any signature, seal or heading to indicate that these have been prepared and are the records of the Survey Authorities. Even if these records were to be accepted, they would at best show possession of the appellants in the year 2006 or 2009. The alleged possession would not clothe the appellants with any right for grant of Ryotwari patta. Such a claim for grant of Ryotwari patta would be available only to those farmers or land holders, who were cultivating the lands prior to the Act being enacted. The possession, alleged or otherwise, in the year 2006 or 2009 would not give rise to any presumption that the appellants or their predecessors, were in possession of the said lands, prior to 1948. 20. The appellants, while claiming to be the successors of the persons who were in possession of the land as cultivating farmers, have not given any details as to the manner in which the appellants had succeeded the persons, who were in alleged possession of the land prior to 1948. In the absence of any such details, it would not be possible for this Court to accept the appellants to be the successors, in interest, of the persons who were in alleged possession, of the land, prior to 1948. 21. The appellants have now produced documents commencing from the year 1908 to claim that these documents demonstrate ownership and possession of the land in question. The learned Special Government Pleader objects to the consideration of these documents as these documents had not been referred to or produced before any Authority prior to the filing of these documents before this Court in the present Appeals. The contention of the learned Special Government Pleader merits acceptance. The learned Special Government Pleader objects to the consideration of these documents as these documents had not been referred to or produced before any Authority prior to the filing of these documents before this Court in the present Appeals. The contention of the learned Special Government Pleader merits acceptance. However, to satisfy the conscience of this Court, the said documents have also been taken into consideration. None of the documents, prior to 1960, even contains a survey number or some method of localization of the land which are mentioned in these documents. The documents after 1960 also do not set out survey numbers which can be traced to these lands. For example, the deeds of sale, dated 05.01.1960, mentions that the land is situated in Sy.No.22, which is clearly outside the survey numbers mentioned in the Writ prayer itself. These documents do not advance the case of the appellants in any manner. Further, no attempt has been made to link the persons, named in these documents, to the appellants. 22. The prayer in W.P.No.1499 of 2010 was for a direction to the Authorities to take action in pursuance of memo, dated 17.10.2008. The said memo refers to a representation received from the ryots of Daminedu Village and the District Collector, Chittoor is requested to send his specific comments immediately, through the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, to the Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. This memo does not give any direction for issuance of Ryotwari pattas to the ryots of Daminedu Village. The learned Single Judge had sought details of the representation, which is said to be the basis for the issuance of the above memo, as the memo would have to be understood in terms of the representation given by the ryots. However, the said representation could not be produced by the appellants. In such circumstances, the view of the learned Single Judge that nothing further remains to be complied by the District Collector does not bear any interference from us. The second prayer in the Writ Petition that a direction be given to the Revenue Authorities to pass orders for issuance of Ryotwari pattas can be granted only when applications are pending before the Revenue Authorities and such applications are not being disposed of. In the present case, the appellants have not produced any such application nor have they given any details of such applications. In the present case, the appellants have not produced any such application nor have they given any details of such applications. In the absence of such applications, the question of passing any other order, even if such order is permissible, would not arise. 23. The relief sought in W.P.No.3049 of 2010 can be considered only in the event of any application for grant of Ryotwari patta being placed before the Court. In the absence of such applications, no relief can be granted in the said Writ Petition and the dismissal of the Writ Petition by the learned Single Judge also does not require any interference. 24. For all the aforesaid reasons, there are no merits in the present Writ Appeals and they are accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 25 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.