ORDER : This writ petition is filed for the following relief : “Issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders passed by the 5th respondent 14.06.2016 in C.No.150/2016 as well as the corrigendum to Waqf property issued by the 6th respondent herein in Gazette No.20, dated 15.05.2014 to the notification published in A.P. Gazette No.16, dated 19.04.1962 at Sl.No.227 in Column No.9 substituting Sy.No.288/34 to Sy.No.288/54 after lapse of 52 years as illegal, arbitrary, null and void contrary to the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 and for a consequential direction to the respondents herein to register the document P39/2013 forthwith and to pass….” 2. This Court has heard Sri M.V. Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Government Pleader for Revenue (Registration and Stamps) for the official respondents. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel for the State Waqf Board and Sri T.S.N. Murthy for the 7th respondent-Royal Mosque Trust Board, Rajahmundry. 3. The petitioners filed this writ petition questioning the order dated 14.06.2016 passed by the 5th respondent and also challenged the corrigendum dated 15.05.2014 and publication of Gazette notification. A consequential direction is also sought to register the document kept pending for registration with the document No.P.39/2013. 4. As is visible from the pleadings and submissions made by Sri M.V. Suresh, the petitioners are claiming title to the property measuring Ac.12.54 cents in Sy.No.288/34 (new Sy.No.418) of Kavalagoyya Village. The petitioners claim right to the property is as follows: (i) Initially, in 1912, the original owners Dadi Subba Rayudu and Dadi Veeraswamy sold the entire extent to Shaik Madar Saheb. He in turn alienated the same to Jamal Bibi @ Yellamma on 01.02.1912. The said Jamal Bibi, executed a Hiba or gift in favour of the deponent in 1970. She also executed a Will dated 05.05.1978. Thus, the petitioners claim to be the owners of the entire Ac.12.54 cents in Sy.No.288/34. When first petitioner wanted to settle a part of the property in favour of the second petitioner and presented a document, the same was kept pending for registration. In a writ petition filed, a direction was given to the 5th respondent to register the document. This was rejected by the impugned proceedings dated 14.06.2016. 5. When first petitioner wanted to settle a part of the property in favour of the second petitioner and presented a document, the same was kept pending for registration. In a writ petition filed, a direction was given to the 5th respondent to register the document. This was rejected by the impugned proceedings dated 14.06.2016. 5. Learned counsel submits that thereafter they came to know that a corrigendum was published to the original Gazette publication in 1962. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the corrigendum was published 52 years after the original Gazette notification was issued. According to him, the same is totally contrary to law. Learned counsel submits that in 1962, a survey was conducted and a report was given as required under Section 4 of the Waqf Act 1954. The Gazette published on 19.04.1962 deals only with property in Sy.No.288/54 measuring Ac.11.88 cents and not the property measuring Ac.12.54 cents in Sy.No.288/34. He submits that under the guise of the corrigendum, a new property is sought to be included 52 years after the original publication. He also relies upon the provisions of A.P. Waqf Act, 1995 (for short “the Act”) to argue in the alternative and without prejudice that for the corrigendum which is virtually a fresh Gazette notification, survey and other procedures stipulated are not followed. Learned counsel points out that under the guise of the corrigendum, a new property with a new extent and survey number is sought to be included. Therefore, he submits that the writ petition is filed challenging the corrigendum and also the refusal to register the property. He relies upon the following case law : (1) Syed Rawoof and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2013 (5) ALD 495 (2) Tamil Nadu Wakf Board v. Hathija Ammal (dead) by L.Rs. Therefore, he submits that the writ petition is filed challenging the corrigendum and also the refusal to register the property. He relies upon the following case law : (1) Syed Rawoof and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2013 (5) ALD 495 (2) Tamil Nadu Wakf Board v. Hathija Ammal (dead) by L.Rs. ( AIR 2002 SC 402 ) (3) Gosula Ramulu and others v. A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad and others ( 2017 (5) ALD 298 (4) Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal ( AIR 2017 SC 2653 ) (5) State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Abdul Ali and others (2017) 3 SCC 108 (6) Commissioner of Income Tax and others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2014) 1 SCC 603 (7) B. Gowra Reddy (deceased by L.Rs.) and others v. Government of A.P. and others ( AIR 2002 A.P. 313 ) (8) Government of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Department and others v. Musalikoppu Janardhan and others. (9) State of Andhra Pradesh (now State of Telangana) v. A.P. State Wakf Board and others ( 2022 (2) ALD 137 (SC) (10) K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. and another v. State of Karnataka ( AIR 2011 SC 3430 ) 6. It is his submission that in view of this case law, the entire procedure adopted and followed is incorrect and contrary to the provisions of the Act. He submits without prejudice to any of his earlier contentions that if this property is to be treated as a Waqf property, the procedure stipulated under the Act has to be scrupulously followed and that since the same is not followed, the entire action is contrary to law. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue argues in line with what is stated in his counter affidavit. It is his contention that the property is a Waqf property and that there is a serious dispute about the title. He points out that the Royal Mosque Trust Board, Rajahmundry is also claiming title to the property. The Inspector-Auditor of Waqf has also given a letter asking the authorities not to register the documents stating that the same is Waqf land. Relying upon the provisions of the Act, he argues that as the property is a Waqf property, it cannot be alienated without the consent of the Board. 8. The Inspector-Auditor of Waqf has also given a letter asking the authorities not to register the documents stating that the same is Waqf land. Relying upon the provisions of the Act, he argues that as the property is a Waqf property, it cannot be alienated without the consent of the Board. 8. For respondent No.6, Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel argues the matter at length. He submits that the writ petition is camouflaged to secure an order on the claim for title of the writ petitioners. He contends that the pleaded flow of title and documentary proof is not enough to justify the case set up by the petitioners. He argues that all the documents are not filed to accept the petitioners' case. Learned counsel argues that the Waqf Board is claiming title to the very same property to which the petitioners are claiming title and states that the Waqf Board/the Mosque are claiming rights over the property. According to the learned counsel, there are very seriously disputed questions about “title” in this case which cannot be decided in a writ petition. He points out that 1962 Gazette notification is sought to be corrected and the crux of the correction is a typographical error by which Sy.No.288/54 was wrongly mentioned instead of Sy.No.288/34. He argues that it is an admitted fact that a survey was conducted in 1962 and that the corrigendum, which corrects an error, relates back to the date of the original notification. Relying upon the following case law, learned counsel submits that the corrigendum is valid and is in accordance with law. (i) Polyplex Corp N Ltd. v. Union of India & others (2014 Law suit (All) 1037) (ii) State of A.P. and others v. Twin City Jewellers Assn. and others ( (2005) 13 SCC 552 ) (iii) Board of Wakf, West Bengaland another v. Anis Fatma Begum and another (2010) 14 SCC 588 (iv) Government of India and others v. Indian Tobacco Association (2005) 7 SCC 396 (v) M. Bikshapathi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others (1999) 6 ALD 270 (DB) (vi) Srinivas Rao Kasbe and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2012) 3 ALD 411 (vii) Sayyed Ali and others v. A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad and others (1998) 2 SCC 642 9. Sri T.S.N. Murthy appears for respondent No.7. Sri T.S.N. Murthy appears for respondent No.7. He points out that his client-Royal Mosque Trust Board is claiming title to the property through document dated 04.01.1912, whereas the petitioner is claiming title through a document dated 16.01.1912. He points out that the 7th respondent is also claiming title through Dadi Subba Rayudu and Dadi Veeraswamy, and petitioners are also claiming that the said Subba Rayudu, Veeraswamy executed a registered document on 16.01.1912 in favour of the petitioners' predecessor in title. Learned counsel also argues that the Mosque is being administered through an order passed by the Court in O.S.No.46 of 1924 and that the name of the Royal Mosque is incorporated in 1-B records also and relies upon the entries dated 25.06.2013. He points out that there are no major changes in the corrigendum and that the essential facts mentioned in the corrigendum are also there in the original publication which is not the subject matter of the challenge. In addition, he also submits that the 1962 survey report which is annexed to his documents clearly shows that the land is in possession and enjoyment of the Royal Mosque Trust Board and the entire Ac.12.54 cents along with building bearing No.5/265 and 5/279 is noted in the surveyors report. He also argues that the petitioners have not proved their possession over the property also. 10. In reply to this, Sri M.V. Suresh argues the matter at length once again and points out that the issue is not about title per se and that the essential dispute raised is about the publication of corrigendum and an attempt being made to take away the rights vested with the petitioners. He also argues that in view of the proviso to Section 6 of the Act, he has to only file a writ petition. COURT: 11. This Court after hearing the submissions notices that very elaborate and serious arguments were advanced in this matter about the manner in which the corrigendum was published. It is argued that the mandatory procedure to be followed under the Act to conduct a survey etc., has not been followed and so the inclusion of the property as a “waqf” is questioned. Further submissions have also been made that the 1962 Gazette publication only deals with property in Sy.No.288/54 and not with the property in Sy.288/34. It is also submitted that the difference in the extent is also clear. Further submissions have also been made that the 1962 Gazette publication only deals with property in Sy.No.288/54 and not with the property in Sy.288/34. It is also submitted that the difference in the extent is also clear. Therefore, it is argued on the ground that using the ruse of a corrigendum, an altogether new property is sought to be included as a waqf property. Elaborate case law has also been cited on this issue, which are referred to above. 12. However, this Court also notices the interesting part of this litigation, which is pointed out by Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel. The 1st petitioner claims absolute title to the property which measures Ac.12.54 cents. He is however, seeking to register a document in favour of the second petitioner of an extent of 1150 square yards which is approximately 2% of the entire property. It is pointed out that the first petitioner is asserting a claim and demanding recognition of his rights through a document executed in favour of the second petitioner. 13. The 1st petitioner relies upon documents of title which are mentioned and pleaded in para 2 of the affidavit onwards. The 7th respondent-Royal Mosque Trust Board is also staking a claim through Dadi Subba Rayudu and Dadi Veeraswamy. According to the 1st petitioner, these two gentlemen executed a deed of sale on 06.01.1912 in favour of Shaik Madar Saheb. In turn, Shaik Madar Saheb executed a document on 01.02.1912 in favour of Jamal Bibi. The said Jamal Bibi executed a hiba in 1970 in the first petitioners' favour and later she executed a Will. The Trust Board administering the Mosque is claiming its title through a document dated 04.01.1912 from the said Dadi Subba Rayudu and Dadi Veeraswami. A copy of the said document is also filed by the Trust Board. A reading of this document shows that property measuring Ac.12.54 cents in Sy.No.288/34 is transferred. All the documents on which the petitioners rely upon are however not before this Court to enable this Court to appreciate the 1st petitioner contention that the entire extent of Ac.12.54 cents was conveyed to him through the documents mentioned above. 14. A reading of this document shows that property measuring Ac.12.54 cents in Sy.No.288/34 is transferred. All the documents on which the petitioners rely upon are however not before this Court to enable this Court to appreciate the 1st petitioner contention that the entire extent of Ac.12.54 cents was conveyed to him through the documents mentioned above. 14. In addition, the 6th respondent has also filed a counter clearly stating that the property was sold by Dadi Subba Rayudu and Dadi Veeraswami in favour of the Rajahmundry Pedda Maseedu or also known as the Royal Mosque Trust Board. According to the Waqf Board, the property was sold in favour of Subba Rayudu and Veeraswami in 1910. The flow of title is mentioned in paras 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit. A scheme framed for the administration and management of the Royal Mosque by the Trust Board is also mentioned. Interestingly, in the reply affidavit filed by the first petitioner, these important aspects are not denied. Respondent No.7 has also come on record and has filed his title deed and also adangal copy showing that its name is mutated in the revenue record. 15. Therefore, from a reading of the counters and submissions, it is clear that there is a serious dispute about the title in this case. Some of the important documents relied upon by the petitioners are not before this Court. Documents pertaining to support possession over the years are not before this Court. The identity of the property claimed by the petitioners and also claimed by the respondents is a matter of pleading and proof. The flow of title, the rights of the executants of the documents and their right to transfer the same etc., are matters of pleading and proof. These are very seriously disputed questions which cannot be decided in the writ petition. This has a bearing on the issue of a Mandamus also. Unless the petitioner proves he has a “right” and that the respondents are bound to exercise a “duty” the petitioner cannot claim a “Mandamus”. The failure to clearly prove the “right” therefore goes against the petitioners. 16. As far as the survey report is concerned, at the request of this Court, Sri P. Veera Reddy has produced the original Commissioners report of 1962. This Commissioners report clearly states that the name of the Waqf is Jamia Masjid or Royal Mosque. The failure to clearly prove the “right” therefore goes against the petitioners. 16. As far as the survey report is concerned, at the request of this Court, Sri P. Veera Reddy has produced the original Commissioners report of 1962. This Commissioners report clearly states that the name of the Waqf is Jamia Masjid or Royal Mosque. It was supposedly established by the Emperor Mohammed Bin Tuglak in the 14th century. The President of the Royal Mosque Trust Board is the Muthavali mentioned in this survey report. The property mentioned in this survey document is land measuring Ac.12.54 cents in Sy.No.233/(not clear whether 54 or 34). Even when compared to the document filed by the Royal Trust Board, the survey number is not clearly (288/34 or 54) visible. Apart from this, the buildings which are attached to the Mosque are given the Dr.No.5/265. The sheds and godowns are given the Dr.No.5/279. It is also mentioned that the Mosque is maintained with the income from the land and the rents. The Mosque is run according to a scheme settled by the Court. It is also mentioned that the land of Ac.12.54 cents was purchased in the year 1912 for Rs.400/- which is the amount given to the Mosque by way of compensation for acquisition of a site of the Mosque for constructions of a police station. Therefore, the original survey report to an extent tallies largely with what is stated by the Waqf Board and also the 7th respondent. 17. A perusal of the corrigendum published would also show that in the original publication, the location of the land in Kavalagoyya village matches with the corrigendum. The shed; gowdown and house bearing No.5/265 are also matching the corrigendum. However, Sy.No.288/54 is mentioned in the original Gazette publication and in the corrigendum Sy.No.288/34 is published. Similarly, the extent in the original publication was Ac.12.54 cents and now it has become Ac.11.88 cents. 18. Another point which to be determined is that the petitioners' writ affidavit goes to show that the 1st petitioner is claiming title as mentioned in para 2 of his writ affidavit to the entire Ac.12.54 cents in Sy.No.288/34. However, when it comes to his subsequent claim, including the proposed document executed in favour of the 2nd respondent, it appears that the petitioners are claiming only Ac.11.88 cents. However, when it comes to his subsequent claim, including the proposed document executed in favour of the 2nd respondent, it appears that the petitioners are claiming only Ac.11.88 cents. In the body of this deed, it is mentioned that the property was measured through the revenue authorities after acquisition of a part of the land for the purpose of laying a public road. No details are however forthcoming as to when the land was acquired, when the survey was completed and if any compensation was paid to the first petitioner or his predecessors in title. 19. This Court has set out all of the above since it is of the opinion that there are very seriously disputed issues which cannot be decided in this writ petition. Elaborate and very sound arguments were advanced by Sri M.V. Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioners on the procedures to be followed on corrigendum, provisions of the Waqf Act etc. These were ably refuted by Sri P. Veera Reddy. However, this Court is of the opinion that it should not enter into these issues of controversy, particularly while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. As mentioned earlier in the order, the issues raised and the documents relied upon by both the parties are not enough to come to an authoritative conclusion that the petitioners property is “not” a Waqf property or that the declaration of the Waqf by the respondents was correct. The claim of the respondent is also to be carefully determined with pleading and proof. Adequate pleading and proof are necessary to establish these aspects. Whether the corrigendum is a mere “errata” i.e. a correction of an existing Gazette publication or not is a matter which requires pleading/proof before a decision is arrived at. As mentioned earlier, even in the original Commissioners report, it is not clear that if the survey number was 288/34 or 288/54. It even looks like Sy.No.288/84 to the naked eye. This is a disputed question. 21. At this stage, this Court is not comprehensively deciding the issues raised. 22. The writ petition is therefore dismissed leaving it open to the parties to pursue their remedies if they are advised in accordance with law. It even looks like Sy.No.288/84 to the naked eye. This is a disputed question. 21. At this stage, this Court is not comprehensively deciding the issues raised. 22. The writ petition is therefore dismissed leaving it open to the parties to pursue their remedies if they are advised in accordance with law. Any opinion expressed in the course of this order is for the limited purpose of disposal of this writ petition alone and should not be treated as an authoritative pronouncement on the right, title, interest of either of the parties to the lis before this Court. No order as to costs. 23. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.