ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “…..to issue a writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Addendum to Errata Notification bearing No.32, dated 13.08.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent/Board in respect of property in Sy.Nos.165, Ac.19-84 cents, Sy.No.166, Ac.13.31 cents, Sy.No.154, Ac.No.18.22 cents, Sy.No.155, Ac.20-64 cents, Sy.No.205, Ac.14-55 cents, Sy.No.210, Ac.15.19 cents, Sy.No.215, Ac.16.52 cents, Sy.No.225, Ac.18.57 cents, Sy.No.226, Ac.21.20 cents, Sy.No.229, Ac.18.60 cents, Sy.No.230, Ac.18.72 cents, Sy.No.231, Ac. 20.38 cents, Sy.No. 156 and 157 to an extent of Ac.17.67 cents and Ac.24.06 cents, basing upon the supplement Part-II in A.P. Gazette No.43-A, dated 24.10.1963 respectively, situated at Munagalapadu village, Kurnool Rural Mandal & District as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14,21,300-A of the Constitution of India as well as Human Rights as well contrary to Wakf Act, 1995, Rules, without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same holding it to be illegal……” 2. The petitioners filed this writ petition through their constituted Power of Attorney Holder. According to them, the subject property originally belonged to one Mr. Nawab Mohammed Ashraf Khan Bahadur, Son of late Nawab Mohammed Anwar Khan Bahadur (political pensioner), Resident of Kurnool and he enjoyed the subject land as pattadar. Later, he offered to sell the same and forefathers of the petitioners have accepted it and accordingly the subject lands were conveyed under a settlement Deed document No.1576 of 1954, dated 08.09.1954, for a total consideration of Rs.2,000/-and accordingly the vendees were inducted into possession of 1/8th share each and ever since the families of the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment continuously. Ultimately, the petitioners being the legal heirs have succeeded the property. The petitioners’ family is bona fide purchaser of the subject land for valuable consideration. Recently, the petitioners intended to sell the property and when they made enquiries as to the stamp duty , they were informed that the subject property was included in prohibited list of properties from registration of documents pursuant to the Errata Notification bearing No.32 dated 13.08.2019 claiming to be the Addendum to the original notification published in the A.P.Gazette bearing No.43-A, published in the supplemental Part-II dated 24.10.1963. In fact, the subject property is not a wakf property all through till date. In fact, the subject property is not a wakf property all through till date. It is the further case of the petitioners that, when they approached the respondent/Board and enquired about the reasons for issuance of Errate, they learnt that it was published basing upon the survey report dated 30.04.1956 said to be of Survey Commissioner of wakf, which is absolutely false and incorrect. The information procured by the petitioners through Right to Information Act, 2005 reveals that, in the Commissioner’s Report on the Survey of Wakfs, at column No.5(a) of the report, the name of the wakif, who dedicated the subject properties and made it as wakf, was recorded as ‘ not known’. Further, it does not have any survey numbers, extent or area, boundaries etc., and there is no reference to survey Nos. to identity the properties on ground and the said report does not contain the subject survey Nos. Basing on such report, a notification was published on 24.10.1963 by the State Government in exercise of powers vested under the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1954. Therefore, the said notification was sought to be amended by issuance of addendum form of errata notification dated 13.08.2019 by the 2nd respondent/Board without any material available on record. There was no specific description or particulars of the subject property and what all shown there in was as TD Nos. with T.D.Nos.3073, 3716 and 3718 of Munagalapadu village and TD No.1288 of Gargayapuram village, without any survey numbers and that too the report does not contain the name of the wakif who endowed the subject property to the Masjid and the nature of conveying it and creating it as wakf property. In fact, the Wakf Board rightly accepted the other title deeds which are related to title deed bearing No.3716 and did not include the subject survey numbers in the Gazette notification. But, curiously, the present errata notification was issued without any further enquiry as per the Act and thus the errata notification is highly illegal so also the consequential inclusion of the subject property under Section 22-A(c) of the Registration Act, 1908. It is further case of the petitioner, that the provisions of the Wakf Act mandatorily obligates the respondent Board/Authority, to make enquiries in to the application made by Muthawalli for registering the wakf, regarding genuineness of application, correctness of wakfnama. It is further case of the petitioner, that the provisions of the Wakf Act mandatorily obligates the respondent Board/Authority, to make enquiries in to the application made by Muthawalli for registering the wakf, regarding genuineness of application, correctness of wakfnama. In the instant case, the report of the Survey Commissioner clearly indicates that the wakif, who has created the wakf, is not known and further the subject survey numbers do not find a place therein. However, the errata notification was issued without conducting any enquiry and in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and without any basis for inclusion of the subject lands. Thus, the errata notification dated 19.08.2019 suffers from incurable legal impediments and the same suffers from patent procedural irregularities. The petitioners made representation dated 07.09.2022 & 08.09.2022 to the 1st and 2nd respondents requesting them to exclude the subject properties from the purview of errata notification. But, the respondents did not consider the same. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ petition, inter alia contending that, as per the Survey Commissioner’s Report dated 30.04.1956, the subject lands belonging to Zuleklhani Masjid (Sunni) situated at Kurnool Village. The lands are Inam lands given to Zulekhani Masjid, Kurnool, which are situated at Munagalapadu village and Gargayapuram village. The Inam was given in immemorial days for pious and charitable purpose and during British rule, Inam enquiry was made in 1929 and allotted T.D.Nos.3073, 3716 and 3718 in respect of Inam lands belongs to Munagalapadu village and T.D.No.1288 for Inam lands of Gargayapuram village. Along with the Survey Commissioner’s report a separate enclosure was prepared in respect of lands covered by T.D.Nos. and the respective Survey Nos. of both Munagalapadu and Gargayapuram village. Even though, the T.D.Nos. are printed in the Gazette, the corresponding survey numbers are not printed. However, the total extent is noted. It is further submitted that, based on the earliest Inam Fair Register, subsequent survey settlement records were prepared, so also re-survey records. and the respective Survey Nos. of both Munagalapadu and Gargayapuram village. Even though, the T.D.Nos. are printed in the Gazette, the corresponding survey numbers are not printed. However, the total extent is noted. It is further submitted that, based on the earliest Inam Fair Register, subsequent survey settlement records were prepared, so also re-survey records. On verification of RSR and Survey Commissioner’s report it was found that, Survey numbers were not printed in the Gazette notification, so an errata notification was issued on 13.08.2019 incorporating corresponding survey numbers along with its extents It is further submitted that, even as per the alleged settlement deed document No.1576/1954, its recitals clearly states that the subject land were offered for the purpose of rendering services to Masjid and for ancillary and incidental, religious purposes only and as such they are wakf lands by nature of the purpose of settlement by the ancestors of the petitioners and therefore, the very object and purpose of service Inam is created under settlement deed. Hence, the subject lands cannot be alienated and they are only for the enjoyment and possession of wakf institution for rendering services. Thus, alienation of service Inam lands is void. Further, the errata notification dates back to the original date of Gazette notification and it implies that something in existence which is being corrected. Therefore, the errata notification come into operation w.e.f. 24.10.1963. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved by publication, they should have approached the wakf Tribunal within one year as provided under Sections 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act, however, the petitioners failed to do so and when their claim is already time barred, they approached this Court by this writ petition. Further, all wakf disputes and its related matters shall be adjudicated by the wakf tribunal and writ jurisdiction cannot be entertained at all. Therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is devoid of merits and hence prayed to dismiss the same. 4. Further, all wakf disputes and its related matters shall be adjudicated by the wakf tribunal and writ jurisdiction cannot be entertained at all. Therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is devoid of merits and hence prayed to dismiss the same. 4. The petitioners filed reply affidavit and while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit, further contended that, there is no material available on record except the Gazette notification dated 24.10.1963, which was issued without any proper enquiry and no survey as required by law was undertaken and that the person who created wakf is not known and thus the wakf created by a person not known is unknown to law. The conveyance deed executed in favour of ancestors of the petitioners dated 08.09.1954 is an absolute sale deed on receipt of consideration and it is incorrect to state that the subject lands were offered for rendering services. Further, the contention of the respondents that the details of survey numbers were annexed to the Survey report in a separate form is false, for it that was the case, the survey numbers would also have been published in the original Gazette dated 24.10.1963. However, a fabricated form was annexed to the survey report filed along with the counter affidavit. It is further submitted that, as per Gazette notification dated 24.10.1963, the Board claimed the property and sought declaration before Civil Court in O.S.No.43 of 1969 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kurnool and the said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.10.1969 holding that the notification dated 24.10.1963 is invalid as it was issued without proper enquiry. Further, this Court vide orders dated 20.06.2011 passed in W.P.No.989 of 2007 quashed the Addendum notification dated 01.09.2005 issued to the original notification dated 24.10.1963. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Putluri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mohammed Gayasuddin, learned Standing counsel for A.P.State Wakf Board for respondent Nos. 2 & 6, learned Government Pleader for Minority Welfare & Wakf for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 6. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Putluri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mohammed Gayasuddin, learned Standing counsel for A.P.State Wakf Board for respondent Nos. 2 & 6, learned Government Pleader for Minority Welfare & Wakf for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 6. SriSrinivasa Rao Putluri, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, as per the provisions of the Wakf Act, the Wakif, who is a major and who is of sound mind, has to dedicate the property for the purpose recognized by Muslim law, for creation of wakf and the provisions of the Wakf Act obligates the Board to enquire into the genuineness and validity of the application and correctness of particulars before registering a wakf. However, the Survey Commissioner’s report dated 30.04.1956 does not specify the name of the Wakif leave about his competence and the specific column intended for the name of the wakif mentions “not known”. Further the Survey Commissioner’s report does not contain the survey numbers much less the subject as wakf property, except T.D.Nos. It is further contended that, the provisions of the Act mandates issuance of public notice inviting objections from persons interested in the property before registration of the property as wakf property. However, no such notice was issued and no enquiry whatsoever was conducted before issuing original notification. Moreover, the errata notification came to be issued after lapse of nearly six decades and that too without calling for objections of the persons, who are admittedly, found in possession of the property. Further, the subject properties were not included in the original notification patently for the reason that they do not belong to wakf. However, by issuing errata notification the subject lands were sought to be included as if they were wakf properties without any basis and without even knowing the person who has dedicated the properties to the said Masjid. Further, the subject properties were not included in the original notification patently for the reason that they do not belong to wakf. However, by issuing errata notification the subject lands were sought to be included as if they were wakf properties without any basis and without even knowing the person who has dedicated the properties to the said Masjid. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the suit filed by the Wakf Board for declaration that the property is a wakf property and of consequential delivery of possession basing on the same notification dated 24.10.1963 but in relation to some other village, vide Original Suit No.43 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool was dismissed by decree and judgment dated 27.10.1969 holding that except the Gazette notification no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the Wakf Board as to when the suit properties were dedicated as wakf and by whom. The said judgment had attained finality, whereby the original gazette notification dated 24.10.1963 was held to be invalid. Attention of this Court has been drawn to copy of the said judgment placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, the self same notification again fell for consideration in respect of different village in O.S.Nos. 175, 174 of 2001 and O.S.No.18 of 2003 filed by individuals against the State Wakf Board and the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad vide common judgment decreed the suits as prayed for declaring their rights in respect of the alleged wakf properties claimed by wakf board, holding that the Inam Fair Register does not find place the title deed whereby wakf is allegedly created. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that, Division Bench of the Combined High Court had an occasion to test the veracity of the original Gazette Notification dated 24.10.1963 and the addendum issued thereto in the year 2005 in respect of some other village and some other mosque vide W.P.No.989 of 2007 and the Division Bench of the Combined High Court held that since the addendum notification was issued after a long lapse of time and without notice or opportunity to the petitioners, the impugned notification dated 01.09.2005 cannot be sustained and accordingly quashed. However, the writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the Board to institute a suit seeking title to the property. Though the said writ petition was disposed of as long back as on 20.06.2011, the Board did not take any steps for initiation of any suit as directed by Division Bench of the Combined High Court. Obviously, for the reasons that the does not possess any documents to prove endowment of the property in favour of the wakf institution. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that, the Wakf Board preferred writ Appeals vide W.A.Nos.394 & 291 of 2022 assailing the orders passed in W.P.Nos.16911, 17177 and 17276 of 2011, whereby the writ petitions filed questioning inclusion of properties in Section 22-A list, were allowed. The Division Bench of this Court after considering the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Combined High Court in W.P.No.989 of 2007 dated 20.06.2011, dismissed the writ appeals. Attention of this Court has been drawn to copy of the orders passed in the writ appeal placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that vide W.P.No.989 of 2007, the Division Bench of combined High Court had quashed the addendum notification in respect of other village and in respect of the other Masjid, issued to the original Gazette notification, which is also subject matter of this writ petition. The original Gazette notification itself cannot sustain since it was issued basing on the Survery Commissioner’s report which does not specify the wakif that donated the properties for creation of gift. Further, the addendum having been issued after lapse of nearly 60 years and that too without conducting any enquiry and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and without the aid of any documents that connects the subject properties to the alleged wakf, the same is liable to be quashed as was done in W.P.No.989 of 2007. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on (1) State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) v. A.P.State Wakf Board and others, 2022(2) ALD 137 (SC), (2) Gosula Ramulu and others v. A.P.Wakf Board, Hyderabad and others, 2017(5) ALD 298 (3) Sodhi Transport c. and others vs. State of U.P. and others, (1986) 2 Supreme Court Cases 486,(4) Telangana State Wakf Board, Hyderabad v. Perugu Radha Madhavi and others, 2022(4) ALD 118 (TS)(DB), (5) Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v.Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 Supreme Court Cases 174, (6) Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt v. Capt. Mehar Singh and others, (1975) 2 Supreme Court Cases 643. 7. On the other hand, Sri Mohammed Gayasuddin, learned Standing counsel for A.P. State Wakf Board, would submit that, as per the Survey Commissioner’s report dated 30.04.1956, the subject lands, which were allotted T.D.Nos.3073, 3716 and 3718 in respect of the lands situated in Munagalapadu village and T.D.No.1288 in respect of the land situated in Gargayapuram village, were Inam lands given to Zulekhani Masjid, Kurnool and accordingly Gazette Notification, dated 24.10.1963 was published in A.P.Gazette No.43-A at serial No.3124 at page No.30. It is further contended that, along with the Survey Commissioner’s report a separate enclosure was prepared in respect of the lands covered by T.D.Nos. and as the corresponding survey numbers were not printed in the Gazette, Addendum to the original notification was issued mentioning survey numbers and extents vide impugned notification. Power to issue notification empowers the authority with power to issue errata notification and that the errata notification dates back to the original date of Gazette notification. The settlement deed even clarifies that, the subject lands are Inam lands and they are non alienable and they were offered for the purpose of rendering services to the Masjid. Neither the Muthawalli nor a Trustee of Wakf property has no right of alienation. Thus the settlor of the alleged settlement deed relied on by the petitioners himself has no right to alienate the property. Under Muslim personal law, wakf may be made either orally or in writing and it is necessary for a wakf to be in writing only. Neither the Muthawalli nor a Trustee of Wakf property has no right of alienation. Thus the settlor of the alleged settlement deed relied on by the petitioners himself has no right to alienate the property. Under Muslim personal law, wakf may be made either orally or in writing and it is necessary for a wakf to be in writing only. The wakif’s name would be mentioned only if the wakf is created by a document and in case the wakf is created orally, the wakif would not be mentioned and thus non mentioning the name of wakif in the relevant column would be of no consequence and the same cannot be taken advantage by the petitioners to usurp the wakf properties. The learned standing counsel would further submit that, if at all the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned publication, they should have approached the wakf Tribunal for getting redressal of their grievance within one year from the date of notification. However, the petitioners failed to do so and as their claim is already barred by time, they filed this writ petition. Since there is a cloud cast on the title to the property, writ petition is not maintainable. Since alienation of the property is ab initio void the petitioners would not get any rights over the property. Further, as the properties relate to wakf, they were rightly incorporated in prohibitory properties list. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the dispute is not amenable for writ jurisdiction and the only remedy available to the petitioners is to approach Wakf tribunal. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Both the learned counsel placed reliance on decisions in support of their contentions. In view of the clear facts emanate from this record, this Court feels it unnecessary to discuss the applicability of the citations at length. 9. Perusal of the material available on record shows that, in the earlier Gazette Notification dated 24.10.1963, which is a notification pertaining to the list of endowed properties to Shia and Sunni wakfs, Sl.No.3124 pertains to Zulekhani Masjid (Sunni) situated in Munaglapadu village and Gargayapuram villages, Kurnool Mandal and District. In Column Nos.10,11 and 12 of this notification pertaining to Sl.No.3124, there is no mention of any survey numbers and extents of the properties, which are possessed and owned by the said Zulekhani Masjid. In Column Nos.10,11 and 12 of this notification pertaining to Sl.No.3124, there is no mention of any survey numbers and extents of the properties, which are possessed and owned by the said Zulekhani Masjid. To rectify the said omission the impugned addendum vide the Gazette dated 13.08.2019 was issued. 10. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the property in the subject survey numbers, which, in the impugned addendum notification, refers as wakf property of the Masjid. 11. The contents of the counter affidavit clearly shows that the Survey Commissioner’s report dated 09.03.1956 is the basis for the addendum. The Survey Commissioner’s report does not specify the Survey numbers and extents of the lands as the properties of the subject Masjid. In Survey Commissioner’s report, as against column No.5(a) pertaining to name of the Wakif, it is stated “not known”. As against Column No.6 pertaining to original Wakf deeds, Title deed, Patta Nos. and dates, only T.D.Nos.3073, 3716 and 3718 of Munagalapadu village and T.D.No.1288 of Gargayapuram are mentioned. 12. The annexure to the report of the Commissioner of Wakfs does not disclose as to who endowed or settled this property in favour of the mosque, by what instrument, on which date and in respect of what extent of land and in which specified territory. The respondents also did not place any documents to show that the property was dedicated to the Masjid by a particular person through a particular deed of conveyance and the land so given was in a particular survey number with specific boundaries. The basis on which the Commissioner of Wakfs recorded this property as belonging to the Mosque is not apparent from the commissioner’s report. Thus, the Commissioner’s report does not clearly disclose any material nor refers to evidence of endowment of this property in favour of the mosque. Thus, the Commissioner’s report cannot be made basis for an assumption by the Board that the property belongs to the mosque. 13. The respondents did not deny the factum of possession of the petitioners over the subject land. The counter affidavit does not disclose any issuance of notice to the petitioners before issuing the impugned addendum notification and thus there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 14. 13. The respondents did not deny the factum of possession of the petitioners over the subject land. The counter affidavit does not disclose any issuance of notice to the petitioners before issuing the impugned addendum notification and thus there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 14. Further, the Inam Fair Register and the Title Deed referred to in the Commissioner report was not placed before this Court to ascertain as to whether the subject survey numbers have been included therein or not. Thus, except the Survey Commissioner’s report, which as already stated above does not disclose even the name of wakif, there is nothing on record to show that the subject lands were dedicated to the Masjid. 15. It is to be noted that mere issuing notification declaring that the properties are wakf properties does not confer valid title in favour of the institution and it is not binding on third parties and thus the respondents who claim the subject properties as wakf properties have to place on record sufficient material to establish their title over the property notwithstanding the entry in the notification. As already stated supra, the person who dedicated the properties is not known and though the Survey commissioner’s report refers to title deed numbers, they were not placed before this Court. In the converse, the petitioners made an attempt to procure the Inam Fair Register of the subject survey numbers of T.D.Nos. 3718, 3716 and 3717 of Munagalapad village, which were referred to in the Survey commissioner’s report by filing an application under Right to Information Act to the Collector’s office, Kurnool. The said office gave an endorsement to the petitioners that Inam Fair Register of the subject survey numbers and T.D.Nos. as sought by the petitioners is not available in the office. Thus, in the absence of any material, simply basing on the survey commissioner’s report, which suffers from lacunae, the respondents cannot claim the subject properties as wakf properties. 16. The said office gave an endorsement to the petitioners that Inam Fair Register of the subject survey numbers and T.D.Nos. as sought by the petitioners is not available in the office. Thus, in the absence of any material, simply basing on the survey commissioner’s report, which suffers from lacunae, the respondents cannot claim the subject properties as wakf properties. 16. The material placed on record further discloses that the suit filed by the Wakf Board vide O.S.No.43 of 1969 for declaration that the schedule property therein as wakf property and for consequential recovery of possession placing reliance on the self same original Gazette notification dated 24.10.1963 issued basing on the Survey Commissioner’s report, however in respect of different Masjid and in relation to the properties of some other village, was dismissed. The observations made therein are to the effect that by mere issuance of Gazette notification without proper enquiry, the Wakf Board cannot contend that the properties are wakf properties for the suit institution. 17. The addendum notification issued to the very same original Gazette notification in relation to another Masjid in regard to the lands situated in another village came up for consideration before a Division Bench of Combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The facts of the said case run almost similar to the present case on hand. The Division Bench after noticing non-mentioning of the name of the wakif in the survey commissioner’s report and as to non-mentioning of the survey numbers and boundaries and the observations made in the above referred suit in O.S.No.43 of 1969, quashed the addendum Gazette notification therein, holding that the same cannot be sustained. 18. Moreover, the Division Bench of this Court while deciding Writ Appeal Nos.394 & 291 of 2022 preferred by the Wakf Board against the common order passed W.P.Nos.16911, 17177 and 17276 of 2021 in respect of Dinnedevarapadu village (subject matter of O.S.No.43 of 1969 and W.P.No.989 of 2007) took note of the observations made in W.P.No.989 of 2007. It is further observed that after quashing the notification dated 01.09.2005 by the Division Bench, a fresh exercise has not been undertaken by the Wakf board for determining and including the subject land as wakf property and in such absence, inclusion of property in 22-A list is not at all justified. So observing, both the Writ Appeals were dismissed. 19. It is further observed that after quashing the notification dated 01.09.2005 by the Division Bench, a fresh exercise has not been undertaken by the Wakf board for determining and including the subject land as wakf property and in such absence, inclusion of property in 22-A list is not at all justified. So observing, both the Writ Appeals were dismissed. 19. From the above, it is evident that addendum to the original Gazette notification, which was issued based on the Survey commissioner’s report, in respect of another Masjid and in respect of lands in some other village, was quashed, inter alia being violative of principles of natural justice. 20. In the instant case, the addendum to the original Gazette notification was issued after lapse of nearly 56 years. At the cost of repetition, the source for issuance of addendum is the Survey Commissioner’s report, which does not disclose the particulars as to the wakif, mode of dedication of the properties, the extent and survey numbers. Further, the impugned addendum notification was issued without issuing any notices to the petitioners who are admittedly in possession of the subject lands. Adding to the above, the additional information that led to inclusion of the subject lands is not known. Thus, the impugned errata notification cannot be sustained, and accordingly the same has to be quashed. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, quashing the impugned Addendum to Errata Notification bearing No.32, dated 13.08.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent/Board. However, the Board, if so advised, is at liberty to issue notices to the petitioners and other persons, if any, in occupation of the properties in the subject survey numbers and if satisfied, issue a fresh notification in accordance with law. Or in the alternative, the Board may also consider the desirability of filing a civil suit for declaration of its title in respect of the subject property. There shall be no order as to costs. As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.