ORDER : K Manmadha Rao, J. WP No.11174 of 2022 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the Respondents No 1 to 4 in consider the representations of Writ Petitioners for grant of Ryotwari Patta under Section 7 of the Inams Abolition Act 1956 in respect of lands in SyNos 1 to 22 with sub divisions covered by T D Nos 647, 218 and 219 of NarayanapuramAgraharam Village erstwhile Cheepurupalle Taluk and presently in Etcherla Mandal of Srikakulam District since the grant of Ryotwari Patta to Inamdars Andhavarapu Govindarajlu and his family members 5th to 8th Respondents by the 4th Respondent in his proceedings Rc No 812/86A dated 10.12.991 EX P1 and grant of Ryotwari Patta to them under Section 7 of the Act in D.Dis.37/95/A dt 29.01.1995 Ex P2 without notice to ryots who are ancestors of petitioners eligible for grant of ryotwaripatta as illegal void in violation of principles of natural justice and absurd and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the physical possession of the petitioners in respect of lands covered by SyNos 1 to 22 with sub divisions covered by T D Nos.647, 218 and 219 of NarayanapuramAgraharam erstwhile Cheepunipalle Taluk and presently in Etcherla Mandal of SrikakulamDist and pass just and appropriate orders as the Court may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice…” WP No.24994 of 2022 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Official Respondents in granting permissions to the Unofficial Respondents to carry out quarry works in Survey No 12 of Narayanapuram Village Etcherla Mandal Srikakulam District as illegal arbitrary and in violation of law and against the Article 14 19 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings vide Rc No 2399/Q/2021 dated 13.06.2022 and Rc No 2002/Q/2021 dated 02.07.2022 issued by the Official Respondents No 4 and 5 and pass…..” 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.11174 of 2022 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, after Abolition of S.M. Puram Zamindari Estate as per Inams Abolition Act, the lands covered by T.D.Nos.647 admeasuring Ac.150-39 cts. (Ac.117- 50 cents un-assessed Hill and Forest as per Inam 'B' Register, T.D. 218 covering Ac.1-74 cts. and T.D.No.219 admeasuring Ac.6-76 cents of Narayanapuyram Village in erstwhile Chepurupalli Taluk and in Etcherla Mandal was notified as Inam lands in an Inam Village not held by any institution as per Srikakulam District Gazette published on 05-05-1972 and hence the provisions of Section 56 of Inams Abolition Act (for short “the Act”) are applicable to these lands. It is stated that the ancestors of Writ Petitioners are tenants in occupation of the lands of Narayanapuyram Village in erstwhile Chepurupalli Taluk and at present in Etcherla Mandal though held by 4 th Respondent in occupation of tenants as on the commencement of the Inams Abolition Act, but negatived the claim of the ancestors of writ petitioners to grant Ryotwari Patta to them falsely claimed that they failed to file any application for grant of the Patta before Revenue Court. It is further stated that the application filed by the Andhavarapu Govindarajlu (one of Inamdars) for himself and on behalf of his sons, who are 5 th to 8 th Respondents, as manager of family falsely claiming that there are no tenants under them, the 4 th Respondent though held that there are tenants, but have not turned claiming Ryotwari Patta, granted Ryotwari Patta to the Inamdars in respect of TD Nos. 647, 218 and 219 respectively falsely stating that notices were issued to tenants in occupation as on date of commencement of Act. The 4 th Respondent failed to act suo motu under Section 7 of the Act to consider the claims of tenants though there is no application for such grant. Thus, the Writ Petitioners have made several Representations dated 03.01.2021, 17.10.2020, 05.01.2019, 26.08.2015, 20.08.2014, 09.12.2013, 05.06.2013 & 26.08.2011 to the 4 th respondent and also to the 3 rd respondent for grant of Ryotwari Pattas to them. But the respondents did not choose to consider the same. Hence the petitioners filed the present WP No.11174 of 2022. 4. Thus, the Writ Petitioners have made several Representations dated 03.01.2021, 17.10.2020, 05.01.2019, 26.08.2015, 20.08.2014, 09.12.2013, 05.06.2013 & 26.08.2011 to the 4 th respondent and also to the 3 rd respondent for grant of Ryotwari Pattas to them. But the respondents did not choose to consider the same. Hence the petitioners filed the present WP No.11174 of 2022. 4. Taking advantage of the inaction of the revenue authorities, the unofficial respondent No.10 entered into lease agreement with the unofficial respondent No.9 for quarry lease in Sy No.1-2 for an extent of 1.42 Hectares of Narayanapuram village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District and thereupon the official respondent No.8 issued No Objection letter vide Rc No.101/2021 dated 23.06.2020 by stating that there is objection to carry on quarry works over in the said extent of land in Sy No.1-2 of Narayanapuram village and granted permission in favour of the unofficial respondents to conduct quarry works for 10 years to mining of Gravel/Morrum/ordinary earth. Therefore, challenging the impugned proceedings vide Rc No.2399/Q/2021 dated 13.6.2022 and Rc No.2002/Q/2021 dated 2.7.2022 issued by the respondents No.4 and 5, the WP No.24994 of 2022 has been filed. 5. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 4 th respondent in WP No.11174 of 2022, wherein, while denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, during the year 1995, the then another Mandal Revenue Officer, Etcherla vide Proceedings in D.Dis.No.37/95A Dt.29.01.1995 had issued orders for grant of Ryotwar Pattas U/s 7 of the Act in addition to the Pattas already granted in Proceedings Rc.No.812/88 A Dt.10.12.1991 of the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Etcherla. As seen from the registered document produced by the Inamdar, Document No.334 of Sub- Registrar, Visakhapatnam, the lands of Narayanapuram Village covered by T.D.No.647 were purchased from Bamidipati Peddasanyasi and Cheemalakonda Appayya by Bontha Sambasivarao of Srikakulam and the same were sold to Andhavarapu Kristamma of Srikakulam on 31.01.1904 by the above sale deed. As seen from the registered partition deed No.2293 Dt.11.09.1989 of The Sub-Registrar, Ponduru after death of Kristamma, the lands of Narayanapuram went to the share of the Andhavarapu Govindarajulu and his sons and who are the present owners of the said land covered by T.D.Nos.647, 218 and 219 were shown in the document. As seen from the registered partition deed No.2293 Dt.11.09.1989 of The Sub-Registrar, Ponduru after death of Kristamma, the lands of Narayanapuram went to the share of the Andhavarapu Govindarajulu and his sons and who are the present owners of the said land covered by T.D.Nos.647, 218 and 219 were shown in the document. Therefore, Sri Andhavarapu Govindarajulu and his sons are entitled to grant Ryotwari Patta for the following Survey numbers in addition to the Pattas already granted in Proceedings Rc.No.812/88/A Dt.10.12.1991 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Etcherla. Survey Number Classification Extent (in Acs) 19-1 to 16 Dry 5-90 21-1 to 38 Dry 17-40 22-1 to 19 Dry 7-82 1-2 52-15 Total 83—27 covered by Sy.Nos. 19, 21, 22 and 01 situated in Narayanapuram Village of Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District. It is stated that Joint Ryotwari Pattas were issued to the Inamdars i.e., 5th Respondent to 8th Respondents by the then Revenue Authorities during the years 1991 and 1995 respectively and the Writ Petitioners are claiming the said lands by filing this Writ Petition. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Writ Petitioners have failed to file the documentary evidence in support of their claim before the then Revenue Authorities. It is stated that the right of claiming tenancy rights were forfeited as they have not filed any appeal before the competent authorities at the stage the petitioners not having any local standI to contest for their tenancy rights. Hence, the writ Petition is not maintainable under law.Therefore, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the Writ petition. It is stated that this Writ Petition relates to the implementation of A.P. (Andhra Area) Inam Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1955, Act XXVII of 56 in Narayanapuram Village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District. After S.M.Puram Zamindari Estate was notified and taken over under the provision of A.P. (Andhra Area) Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, Act No. XXVIII of 1948, an enquiry was conducted suo-moto by the then Assistant Settlement Officer, Anakapalli in his Proceedings 1/35/50 Dt.29.08.1967 and it was held that the Village Narayanapuram is not an estate under Sec.3(2)(d) of the Estate Land Act and not an Inam Estate under Section 2(7) of the Estate Abolition Act. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that, as seen from the DCB for Faslies 1357, 1358, 1359, 1360, the Inamdars are Andhavarapu Venkatesam etc., and the following ryots cultivated the land. S.No. Name Type Amount 1 Chinni Guranna Gunti Gurayya Dry Ac 19.50 2 Chilaka Akkalanaidu Dry Ac 6.50 3 Tonangi Asirappa Dry Ac 7.50 4 Patinavalasa Mahalaxmi Dry Ac 5.00 5 Chilaka Dalappalanaidu Dry Ac 1.34 Total 39.84 The above ryots have not filed any claims claiming the lands. Therefore they are not entitled for any land. As seen from the DCB of the village for the years 1957 to 66, the following ryots cultivated the lands. S. No. Name Ac 1 Chinni Guranna Gunti Gurayya 19.50 2 Chilaka Akkalanaidu 6.50 3 Tonangi Asirappa 7.50 4 Patinavalasa Mahalaxmi 5.00 5 Chilaka Dalappalanaidu 1.34 Total 39.84 As the above ryots have cultivated the lands as on the commencement of the Inam Abolition Act 1956, they are entitled for Ryotwari Patta for 2/3 share provided that they prove as tenants viz., a lessee under a tenancy agreement express or implied or under any other law. It is further stated that the petitioners have failed to file the documentary evidence in support of their claim before the then Revenue authorities and that they cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as no legal right of the petitioners much less than the Fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated. It is also stated that the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in IA No.119/2022 in IA No.67/2022 in O.S No.94 of 2022 filed by the Andhavarapu family against the 15 defendants seeking to grant police aid directing the SHO, Etcherla police station to prevent the defendants. Vide order dated 19.5.2022, the IAJCJ. Srikakulam has allowed the said IA and granted police aid in respect of the petition schedule properties to prevent the defendants. Aggrieved by the said order, CRP No.1072 of 2022 has been filed. It is stated that the right of claiming tenancy rights were forfeited as they have not filed any appeal before the competent authorities at the stage the petitioners are not having any locus standi to contest for their tenancy rights. Hence the present writ petition is not maintainable under law and liable to be dismissed. 6). It is stated that the right of claiming tenancy rights were forfeited as they have not filed any appeal before the competent authorities at the stage the petitioners are not having any locus standi to contest for their tenancy rights. Hence the present writ petition is not maintainable under law and liable to be dismissed. 6). The counter affidavit has been filed by the 7 th respondent in WP No.11174 of 2022. While denying the allegations made in the petition reiterated the contents made in the counter affidavit of 5 th respondent. It is stated that the representations submitted by the petitioners are never ever submitted with a view to either for grant of Ryotwari Patta under the A.P. Inam Abolition Act or for questioning the grant of ryotwari patta to the ancestors of unofficial respondents. It is further stated that, the so called ancestors of the petitioners did not avail any remedies available within the statutory period as applicable and mentioned in the 4 th respondent orders. The grant of Ryotwaripatta to the ancestors of the unofficial respondents vide proceedings in RcNo.812/86-A, dated 10.12.1991 and proceedings in D.Dis.37/95/A, dated29.1.1995 have become final for all practical purposes. It is further stated that the writ petitioners in their writ affidavit along with exhibits failed to establish that the petitioners are related to a) Chinni Guranna b) GuntiGurayya c) ChilakaAkkala Naidu d) Tonangi Asirappa e) Patinavalasa Mahalaxmi f) ChilakaDalapala Naidu as ancestors and that no representation was over submitted for grant of Ryotwari Patta under Section 7 of the Inams Abolition Act 1956 and as such do not deal with the Inam lands of 5 th to 8 th respondents or question the grant of Ryotwari Patta issued by the 4 th respondent. It is further stated that the unofficial respondents would suffer irreparable loss, if the proceedings of the 4 th respondent are declared as illegal and that the petitioners have no locus standi and the orders of the 4 th respondent have become final. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7). The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No.9 and 10. It is stated that even the land covered by the Sy.No.1-2 of Narayanapuram village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District, in which, the license was granted by the competent authority in favour of the 9 th respondent is not the subject matter at all in O.S No.94/2022. 7). The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents No.9 and 10. It is stated that even the land covered by the Sy.No.1-2 of Narayanapuram village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District, in which, the license was granted by the competent authority in favour of the 9 th respondent is not the subject matter at all in O.S No.94/2022. Therefore the suit and subject matter therein is no way concerned and connected to the land covered by the Licence granted by the competent authority and thereby the contention raised on that basis has no legs to stand and accordingly the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 8. Heard Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan, learned Senior counsel representing Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Prakash Budharapu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. On hearing, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petitions, contended that, according to Section 4 (b) of the said Act, if the lands are held by an Inamdar, other than an institution as on the date of commencement of the Act and is in his actual occupation of the said date, the tenant who was declared to be in occupation of that lands as on 7-1-1948 by the Revenue Court under Section 5(3) of the Act shall be entitled for 2/3rd share and Inamdar is entitled for the remaining 1/3rd share. He submits that the ancestors of Writ Petitioners are tenants in occupation of the lands of Narayanapuyram Village in erstwhile Chepurupalli Taluk and at present in Etcherla Mandal though held by 4th Respondent in occupation of tenants as on the commencement of the Inams Abolition Act, but negatived the claim of the ancestors of writ petitioners to grant RyotwariPatla to them falsely claimed that they failed to file any application for grant of the Patta before Revenue Court. He further submitted that the ancestors of Writ Petitioners were all illiterates and were not aware of the notification issued by the Government and conduction of enquiry by Revenue Authority for grant of Ryotwari Patta. 10. He further submitted that the ancestors of Writ Petitioners were all illiterates and were not aware of the notification issued by the Government and conduction of enquiry by Revenue Authority for grant of Ryotwari Patta. 10. Learned Senior counsel further submits that, based on the application filed by the Andhavarapu Govindarajlu (one of Inamdars) for himself and on behalf of his sons, who are 5th to 8th Respondents, as manager of family falsely claiming that there are no tenants under them, the 4th Respondent though held that there are tenants, but have not turned claiming Ryotwari Patta, has granted Ryotwari Patta to the Inamdars in respect of TD Nos. 647, 218 and 219 respectively falsely stating that notices were issued to tenants in occupation as on date of commencement of Act. Further, the 4th Respondent failed to act suo motu under Section 7 of the Act to consider the claims of tenants though there is no application for such grant. It is asserted by the Petitioners that no notices were issued or served on any of the tenants in occupation of the lands and hence the joint patta issued in favour of 5th to 8th Respondents and other Inamdaras by the 4th Respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.812/86-A, dated 10-12-1991 and grant of Ryotwari Patta to Inamdars under Section 7 of the Act in D.Dis.37/95/A, dt.29-01-1995 without considering their rights of tenants for grant of Ryotwari Patta (ancestors of Petitioners) as illegal, void and not binding on the Writ Petitioners. He further submitted that the adangal copy issued by the Revenue Authority even in the year 2015 shows the cultivation by Petitioners as evidenced by Adangal Copy clearly disclose that the Inamdars were not in possession of the lands. 11. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the rights under the Inams Abolition Act, on the ancestors of Petitioners is a statutory recognition of their eligibility for grant of Ryotwari Patta under Section 7 of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956 and cannot be denied by the 4th Respondent on those grounds. Thus, the grant of Ryotwari Patta to Andhavarapu Govindarajulu and his family members (Respondents 5 to 8) in D.Dis.37/95/A, dt.29-01-1995 pursuant to orders in proceedings Rc.No.812/86-A dated 16-12-1991 of 4th Respondent as illegal, violation of principles of natural justice, arbitrary and void. 12. Thus, the grant of Ryotwari Patta to Andhavarapu Govindarajulu and his family members (Respondents 5 to 8) in D.Dis.37/95/A, dt.29-01-1995 pursuant to orders in proceedings Rc.No.812/86-A dated 16-12-1991 of 4th Respondent as illegal, violation of principles of natural justice, arbitrary and void. 12. To support his contentions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a catena of decision of High Court of Kerala reported in (i) Smitha M.G. vs State of Kerala &Ors., [WA No.174/2024 dated 27.7.2022]; (ii) decision of High Court Madras in a case of B. Sundramoorthi vs Addl. Chief Secy/Commr.&otters, WP(MD) No.16821 of 2023 Mad Hc, And also the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (i) SukhDutt Ratra vs State of Himachal Pradesh , [ (2022) 7 SCC 508 ] ; (ii)In MSudakar vs V. Manoharan&Ors, [ (2011) 1 SCC 484 ] (iii) In a case of Dwarakanath vs IT Officer , [ AIR 1966 SC 81 ] ; (iv) In Sudama Devi v Commissioner &Ors., [ (1983) 2 SCC 1 ] ; (v) In Gopal KrishnajiKetkar vs Mohammed Haji Latif&Ors, [1968 SCC OnLine SC 63]; (vi)In Mussauddin Ahmed vs State of Assam , [ (2009) 14 SCC 541 ] ; (vii) In Maharaja Alak Narayana Science and Arts Coeity vs BuddarajuSarojini and ors, 2004 SCC OnLine AP 980 Learned Senior counsel has also relied upon other decisions reported in AyyamPerumal &Ors vs The Estates Abolition Tribunal &Ors., [(1975) ILR (Mad) 189]; In TS PlP. Chidambaram Chettiar (d) by LRs vs TKB Santanarangaswami Odayar & ors., [ (1968) 2 SCR 754 ]; In State of TN vs His Holiness Srilla Sri Ambavalana Pandarasannadhi Adheenakartha &Ors, [ (1997) 9 SCC 313 ]; In M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd., vs The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 70 13. Learned Senior counsel while relying upon the above decisions, submits that, as per Section 4(2)(c ), if no tenant has filed an application before the Revenue Court under sub section (2) of that section within the period specified therein the tenant in the occupation of the land on the date of commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta for two-thirds share of that land and the Inamdar shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta for the remaining one-third share. Thus the grant of Ryotwari Patta to Andhavarapu Govindarajulu and his family members i.e., respondents No.5 to 8 pursuant to orders dated 16.12.1991 of 4 th respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. 14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents while reiterating the averments made in the counters, submits that the land covered by the Sy.No1-2 of Narayanapuram village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District, in which, the license was granted by the competent authority in favour of the 9 th respondent is not the subject matter at all in OS No.94/2022. Therefore the suit and subject matter therein is no way concerned and connected to the land covered by the License granted by the competent authority and thereby the contention raised on that basis has no locus standi.Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. 15. Perused the material on record. 16. It is pertinent to mention there that, according to Section 4 (b) of the said Act, if the lands are held by an Inamdar, other than an institution as on the date of commencement of the Act and is in his actual occupation of the said date, the tenant who was declared to be in occupation of that lands as on 7-1-1948 by the Revenue Court under Section 5(3) of the Act shall be entitled for 2/3rd share and Inamdar is entitled for the remaining 1/3rd share. So, in view of the same, it is observed in the present case that the ancestors of Writ Petitioners are tenants in occupation of the lands of Narayanapuyram Village in erstwhile Chepurupalli Taluk and at present in Etcherla Mandal though held by 4th Respondent in occupation of tenants as on the commencement of the Inams Abolition Act, but negatived the claim of the ancestors of writ petitioners to grant Ryotwari Patla to them falsely claimed that they failed to file any application for grant of the Patta before Revenue Court. it is also the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners were all illiterate and were not aware the Notification issued by the Government and conduction of enquiry by Revenue Authority for grant of Ryotwari Patta. 17. it is also the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners were all illiterate and were not aware the Notification issued by the Government and conduction of enquiry by Revenue Authority for grant of Ryotwari Patta. 17. Moreover it is the contention of the respondents that the land covered by the Sy.No1-2 of Narayanapuram village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam District, in which, the license was granted by the competent authority in favour of the 9 th respondent is not the subject matter at all in OS No.94/2022. Therefore the suit and subject matter therein is no way concerned and connected to the land covered by the License granted by the competent authority. 18. As seen from the impugned order dated 10.12.1991, wherein it is observed that: ……After conducting enquiries, orders were issued in the proceedigns SR.No.9/67, dated13.1.68 that the lands covered by T.D.Nos.647, 218 and 219 appearing in Inam B. Registers of Narayanapuram village than existing in Cheepurpalli Taluk and at present existing in Etcherla Mandel are Inam lands in an Inam village not held by any institutions. Final Notification was issued and published in the District Gazette of Srikakulam District, under Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Act stating that it is an DarimilaInam land in Ryotiwari Village and erratus published in Srikakulam District Gazette dated 26-4-73 stating that it is an Inam land in an inam village. On the above decision Sri Andhavarapudovinda Rajulu and two others field W.P 4119/81 claiming that Narayanapuram village is not an Inam village and it is part of Jemindariestate of S.M.Puram, and the petitioners are entitled for Ryotiwari Pattas. The A.P. High Court in its W.P.4119/31, dated 15-4-07 dismissed the H.P. Therefore the lands in Narayanapuram village are Inam lands in an Inam villages. Not held by any institution and the provision of Act XXXVII of 56 are applicable. … …. The village was subsequently surveyed (1989). As per the Fair land Register the Total Extent of the village came to Hec. 48/33/5 including porambokes and S.No.1 20 Hec. (Roughly) Kondaporamboke. The names of the inandars were not written and the names of the Ryots were written. Notices were issued Under Section 7 of the Act in Perm V to all the ryots and 56 statements were recorded from them., (By my predecessor on 2-5-90. Except saying that they are cultivating the lands from their father's time. They have no recorded evidence. Notices were issued Under Section 7 of the Act in Perm V to all the ryots and 56 statements were recorded from them., (By my predecessor on 2-5-90. Except saying that they are cultivating the lands from their father's time. They have no recorded evidence. They have stated that they are paying the Kists to Andhavarapu Govinda Rajulu” 19. It is also observed from the impugned order that : As seen from the Registered Document produced by the Inamdars Don.No.334, of Sub-Registrar Visakhapatnam, the lands of Narayanapuram covered by T.D.647 have purchased from Bhamidipati Pedasanyasi in and Choumalakonda Appayya by Bontha Sambhasiva Rao of Srikakulam and the same were sold to Andhavarapu Krishtammagaru of Srikakulem on 31.3.1904 by the above sale deed. As seen from the Registered partition Dead No.2293, dated 11-9-89 of the Sub-Register Ponduru, after death of Kristamma, the Lands of Narayanapuram went to thonbare of Andhavarapu Govinda Rajulu and his sons are the present owners of the land covered by T.D. No. 647, 218, and 219 hate shown in the document. Therefore Sri Andhavarapu Govinda Rajulu and his sons are entitled to ryotiwaripatta for the total extent of Ac 59.31 cents. Further, a joint patta is being issued to Sri AndhavarapuGovindaRAjulu, venkatappa Rao, Krishna Murthy, Rama Rao and Lakshmana Rao. 20. It is mainly noted that an appeal can be filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, within 60 days from the date of the order. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court observed that, the so called ancestors of the petitioners did not avail any remedies available within the statutory period as applicable and mentioned in the 4 th respondent orders. Moreover, the grant of Ryotwari patta to the ancestors of the unofficial respondents vide proceedings dated 10.12.1991 and dated 29.01.1995 have become final for all practical purposes. Therefore, this Court found no merit in the instant WP No.11174 of 2022 and the same is liable to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly, the Writ Petition No.11174 of 2022 is dismissed.Consequently, in view of the dismissal of WP No.11174 of 2022, the cause in WP No.24994 of 2022 & CRP No.1072 of 2022 do not survive and hence the same are also dismissed No costs. 23. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.