JUDGMENT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Revision is filed under Section 83(9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act') challenging the judgment dt.14-11-2018 in O.S.No.167 of 2016 of the Telangana State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner herein is the Telangana State Wakf Board. 3. It had filed O.S.No.2 of 2009 against the respondents for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with its alleged possession of a wakf property admeasuring Ac.4.00 gts in Sy.No.136 known as Dargah Hazrath Chirag Ali Shah and Graveyard, (Takia) situated at Chinna Golconda village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and to restrain the respondents from removing any graves located in the said property. The case of the petitioner 3. It was the case of the petitioner that in the Gazette notification dt.09-02-1989, the extent of land belonging the above Dargah was shown as only Ac.2.00, but according to the petitioner, there were graves of the members of the Muslim community located in an additional area of Ac.2.00 other than the area already mentioned in the notification, and that this additional area has become Wakf property by user by time immemorial. 4. It contended in the suit that the respondents intend to occupy and destroy the Wakf property and attempted in 1998 to grab the property, but the same was stopped with the help of public representatives, but again after 10 years, respondents were trying to occupy the suit schedule property, and dismantled the Dargah by removing the graves. According to the petitioner, on 06-12-2008 certain graves were razed by respondents and it was necessary to check the illegal activities of the respondents and that was why the suit was filed. The case of the respondents 1 and 2 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement opposing the suit claim. 6. They contended that petitioner did not have any possession of the suit schedule property and in fact had no concern with it. They claim that they were not aware of the Gazette notification. 7. According to them, they are in possession and occupation of Ac.8.02 gts in the said village, that there were no graves of members of Muslim community in it. They denied damaging any existing graves as was alleged by the petitioner. They claim that they were not aware of the Gazette notification. 7. According to them, they are in possession and occupation of Ac.8.02 gts in the said village, that there were no graves of members of Muslim community in it. They denied damaging any existing graves as was alleged by the petitioner. They traced title to the property to one Ameerpet Pochiga, whose name was included as pattedar and possessor of the land of Ac.8.02 gts in khasra pahani of 1954-55. According to them, the suit land is an inam land and occupancy right certificate has been granted in favour of respondents on 09-01-2007 by the Inams Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional officer, Chevella Division under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 after enquiry. The events after filing of the suit 8. The suit was later renumbered as O.S.No.167 of 2016. 9. The Wakf Tribunal framed the following issues: "1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? 2. To what relief?" 10. Before Tribunal, the petitioner examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-10. The respondents examined D.W.1 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-37. The judgment of the Tribunal 11. By a judgment dt. dt.14-11-2018 , the Tribunal dismissed the suit. 12. The Tribunal held that the Gazette notification Ex.A-2 and the Survey Commissioner's report Ex.A-3 showed that only Ac.2.13 gts in Sy.No.117 and 136 was Wakf property and not Ac.4.00 in Sy.No.136 as was claimed by the petitioner. 13. It also referred to the cross-examination of petitioner's witness P.W.1 wherein he stated that he did not peruse the entire record available with the Wakf Board in respect of the suit schedule property, that he did not see revenue records pertaining to the suit schedule property except the Gazette notification and Survey Commissioner's report; that the witness admitted that there is no other title to show that Wakf Board is the owner of the suit schedule property, that he did not know whether the petitioner filed any record to show that Wakf Board has any possession of the land in Sy.No.136, and that there is no other record to show the possession of the Wakf Board of the suit schedule property at any point of time. It also noted that could not say what the boundaries of the Wakf land situated in Sy.No.136 were. 14. It also noted that could not say what the boundaries of the Wakf land situated in Sy.No.136 were. 14. The Tribunal, therefore, held that petitioner did not establish prima facie case as evidence adduced by petitioner did not support the pleadings and there was no balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner. It also held that there is no material to show that Ac.2.00 of land other than the land notified as Wakf property in Ex.A-2 notification had been used as wakf land continuously since times immemorial, and that the documents filed by respondents showed that the land in Sy.No.136 did not belong to the Wakf. The plea of the petitioner in Revision 15. Assailing the same, this Revision is filed. 16. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to law and evidence on record, that the Tribunal misconstrued the facts and that Exs.A-1 to A-10 filed by petitioner clinchingly prove that the suit schedule property is Wakf property. He also contended that Ex.A-9 pahani for the year 1997-98 shows possession of the petitioner and that an Urs of the Dargah was also being celebrated in the suit schedule property. The consideration by the Court 17. The suit filed by petitioner was a suit for an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the suit schedule property, which it claims to be the Wakf property. Therefore it is the duty of the petitioner to establish possession of the property on the date of filing of the suit. 18. Except Ex.A-9 which is the pahani for the year 1997-98, no other document is filed by the petitioner to prove the possession of petitioner over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit on 06-01-2009. 19. Assuming that there was a Gazette notification in favour of the petitioner Ex.A-2, the said Gazette notification admittedly covers only Ac.2.00 of land in Sy.No.136 of Chinna Golconda village and does not cover Ac.4.00 of land which is claimed by petitioner in the suit. The plea of the petitioner that extra Ac.2.00 of property is a wakf by user, is not supported by any material. 20. The plea of the petitioner that extra Ac.2.00 of property is a wakf by user, is not supported by any material. 20. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error of jurisdiction or error of law or fact in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dismissing O.S.No.167 of 2016 which warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 83(9) of the Act. 21. Therefore the Revision fails and is dismissed. No costs. 22. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.