ORDER :- The revision is filed by third parties under Section 89(3) of the A.P. Wakf Act, 1995 questioning the judgment in OS No.39 of 2008 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad. In the above suit was filed by a Mutawalli and the State Wakf Board against the District Collector, Hyderabad and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration with regard to land in Old Sy.Nos.18 and 19 corresponding to Town Sy.Nos.33/1, 20, 26, 28, 30, 34, 38, 11, 18, 23, 36 and 37 of Ward No.46, Block-D, TS No.1 of Ward No.46, Block-H and in TS Nos.7, 25, 60 of Ward No.46, Block-G of Nampally Village, Hyderabad. 2. The claim was made by the plaintiffs that the said properties originally belonged to Dargah Hazrath Shah Khamoosh Saheb R.H and however it was shown as a Government lands but it was also notified as a Wakf and consequently a correction has to be made in TSLR to the extent of 37,000 square meters. The Government and the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration remained ex parte and accordingly a decree was passed on 26.8.2008 directing the correction of the entry and treating it as a Wakf and not as a Government property. Questioning the above thing, the revision petitioners' claim that they are tenants of the property and in possession of the property and the property belongs to the Government and the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the suit and the real facts were suppressed; the lands are Government lands and the earlier litigation clearly discloses the same. Therefore, the petitioners challenged the order. 3. Now the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the petitioners are interested parties and whether the decree passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside? 4. The Counsel for the revision petitioners relies mainly upon the previous litigation and according to him the land in disputed Survey Nos.18 and 19 was in possession of the petitioners as they are slum dwellers and it is a Government land. An extent of 2190 square meters was only occupied by the Dargah in Sy.No.18. Reliance is sought to be placed on the judgment in WP No.1447 of 1964 and also OS No.454 of 1970 which was confirmed in AS No.99 of 1975 where under a decree was granted in favour of the Mutawalli to the effect that the said properties are not Wakf properties. Reliance is sought to be placed on the judgment in WP No.1447 of 1964 and also OS No.454 of 1970 which was confirmed in AS No.99 of 1975 where under a decree was granted in favour of the Mutawalli to the effect that the said properties are not Wakf properties. According to the Counsel for the revision petitioners, the father of the first respondent has taken up the earlier litigation and in WP No.5804 of 1980 obtained an order for stopping of the issue of pattas in favour of the slum dwel1ers. Evidently, in earlier WP No.346 of 1990 survey was ordered and subsequently the Deputy Director of Survey and Land. Records in 1996 initiated the survey proceedings and survey was conducted and questioning that WP No.34062 of 1998 was filed, which was allowed and as against that WA No.1266 of 2002 and WA , No.1403 of 2002 were filed and disposed off on 21.3.2006 ordering the survey to be conducted as to the extent of the property owned by the Dargah and the Government. Evidently, some' of the petitioners have impleaded themselves in the said writ petitions and in the writ appeals, WA Nos. 1266 and 1403 of 2002, as referred in detail in the grounds of revision petition. As per the directions of this Court in writ appeals, District Collector Hyderabad has demarcated the land and sent the proceedings dated 19.3.2008 after considering the report of the Surveyor and found specifically errors have crept up and they need for rectification and the entry with regard to description as "G" has to be corrected as Dargah Hazrath Shah Kamoosh with regard to disputed properties. He has also acted as per the instructions of the C.C.L.A and consequently informed the parties to approach the Wakf Board or the civil Court. Evidently, any right or interest claimed by the petitioners is not independent and• their occupation can only be valid if it is a Government land. In fact the ,District Collector representing the Government in pursuance of the directions of the High Court has sent a report after survey and issued the proceedings finding that there was an error in description of the property as a Government land which necessitated correction and passing of the decree. In fact the ,District Collector representing the Government in pursuance of the directions of the High Court has sent a report after survey and issued the proceedings finding that there was an error in description of the property as a Government land which necessitated correction and passing of the decree. When the petitioners' claim right of occupation only as a land belonging to the Government and when the Government did not oppose the rectification and in fact when it has found that the entries are incorrect, it is not open for the petitioners to say that there was a collusion between the Government and the Wakf Board. Whatever may be the earlier litigation that has taken place, it looses its effect in pursuance of the orders issued by this Court to conduct a re-survey and to determine the factual nature of the lands and the petitioners cannot challenge the report of the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad which was done as per the directions of this Court. The petitioners being also parties to the writ appeals are bound by the directions and they cannot say that the Government has collusively acted. The land evidently was not given to the private parties and it was found to be Wakf property. A declaration in the gazette about Wakf when it has become final cannot be challenged. The right of the petitioners is only through the Government which they want to agitate and when the Government itself disowns its interest in the property, the petitioners cannot be said to be interested parties to dispute the order of the Wakf Tribunal and the judgment in OS No.39 of 2008 passed by the Wakf Tribunal. They can only seek protection if they are forcibly evicted but they cannot dispute the decree about the rights of the parties. Therefore, in view of the report of the Collector which was implemented by virtue of the decree, the petitioners cannot agitate and seek to challenge of the above said decree. Therefore, I find no merits in the claim of the petitioners and they have no independent interest or right to be effected parties when once the Government itself has no claim in the properties. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. The points are therefore answered accordingly. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.