ORDER : 1. Heard Smt. Azra J. Dundge, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Manoj Gowda, learned counsel for the respondents representing Sri. P. Mahesha and Sri. Bhojegoyda T. Koller, Additional Government Advocate. 2. Second defendant in O.S. No.4/2016 is the revision petitioner challenging the Order passed by the Wakf Tribunal dated 08.07.2019 allowing the petition filed by the first respondent/plaintiff and declared that Public notice dated 10.12.2010 and Corrigendum dated 15.06.2011 bearing No.KBW/EDM/08/CTA/2010-2011 are not binding on the plaintiff. The property involved in the suit OS No.4/2016 is different from the property claimed by the defendants as Muslim graveyard and granted an order of permanent injunction from interfering with the suit property. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 In respect of the following immovable property, initially suit for permanent injunction came to be filed, later on amended including prayer for declaration: SCHEDULE All the piece and parcel of Sy.No.10/3B, measuring an extent of 3 acre, situated at Cholgatta Village, Chitradurga Taluk, now called as Jayakumar Layout Mahaveernagar, Chitradurga and bounded on : East : B.D. Road i.e., N.H.4 West : Road to Railway Y Station North: Property belonging to Gowdara Jayanna South : 40 feet Municipal Road. 3.2 Suit property according to the plaintiff originally belonged to Sri. J.M. Tippeswamy, who is the brother of the plaintiff, who had purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 09.07.1956 from its' previous owner Sri Giriyappa. 3.3 Plaintiff and his brother, Sri. Tippeswamy have partitioned their properties in which suit property had fallen to the share of the plaintiff by partition deed dated 29.07.1968. 3.4 Thus, plaintiff claimed that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property having mutated the revenue entries in his name vide Order passed in M.R. No.6/1968-69. 3.5 Plaintiff further applied for conversion of the suit property for non-agricultural purpose and accordingly Deputy Commissioner after verifying the material documents placed before him, passed an Order on 17.11.1984 granting the conversion of the usage of the land for non-agricultural. 3.6 Plaintiff thereafter formed a residential layout in the suit property remarketing the house sites. 3.7 It is also contented by the plaintiff that he has sold number of sites and people have constructed their houses and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. 3.6 Plaintiff thereafter formed a residential layout in the suit property remarketing the house sites. 3.7 It is also contented by the plaintiff that he has sold number of sites and people have constructed their houses and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. 3.8 It is further contention of the plaintiff that in the year 1987, at the instigation of fourth defendant, some persons by name Patel Mohammod Noorulla and others started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and at that point of time plaintiff was constrained to file a suit in OS No.286/1987 before the Principal Civil Judge, Chithradurga which got decreed in favour of the plaintiff and there was an Order of permanent injunction. 3.9 It is further contented that during the pendancy of the said suit, said Mohammod Noorulla and others challenged the license issued by the City Municipal Council Chitradurga before the Deputy Commissioner in proceedings bearing No.RP No.39/1987-88 and said petition was also dismissed. 3.10 In respect of Serial No.322 of gazette notification pertaining to Agasanakallu Village, Mohammod Noorulla and others challenged the judgment and decree in OS No.286/1987 in Miscellaneous Appeal No.3/1988 which was also dismissed. Against the same, an appeal came to be filed in RA No.99/2000 which also came to be dismissed and thus the judgment and decree of permanent injunction passed in OS No.286/1987 became final. 3.11 When the matter stood thus, first defendant issued a Notice suo motu to the plaintiff under Section 54 of the Wakf Act enquiring into the matter that Sy.No.10 of Agasanakallu Village is a Wakf property and khabarstan of Muslims and therefore, initiated the action. 3.12 It is contented that first defendant has no suo motu power for issue of the notice and thereafter, the proceedings were before the Divisional Commissioner, which was concluded in the year 1987-1988. Suo-motu power exercised under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, was again utilized in the year 2002 after fourteen years and the same was impermissible. 3.13 The defendants have not taken any prohibitory Order regarding selling of the sites formed in Survey No.10/3b of Cholaghatta Village and therefore Show Cause Notice was stated to be illegal. 3.14 However there was an enquiry and Tahsildar Chitradurga was appointed to visit the spot and file a report. 3.13 The defendants have not taken any prohibitory Order regarding selling of the sites formed in Survey No.10/3b of Cholaghatta Village and therefore Show Cause Notice was stated to be illegal. 3.14 However there was an enquiry and Tahsildar Chitradurga was appointed to visit the spot and file a report. Tahsildar of Chitradurga visited the spot and filed a report that plaintiff has not encroached any portion of the land in Sy.No.10 of Agasanakallu Village. 3.15 At that juncture, there was one more report that has been sought by the Authority which was challenged by the plaintiff by approaching this Court in a Writ Petition WP No.26335/2010. 3.16 A co-ordinate bench of this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition, directed that a preliminary question as to whether the property in question comes under the Wakf Act or not is to be decided by the by the second defendant. On 19.08.2011, second defendant wrote a letter to Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga for investigation regarding the encroachment of 'khabarstan' property in the respect of Sy.No.10 of Agasanakallu village by the plaintiff. 3.17 Thus, Motive of the defendants is somehow to grab the valuable property belonging to the plaintiff. Therefore, he was constrained to file the suit for declaration that property in Sy.No.10 of Agasanakallu Village is a different property which is claimed under the notification referred to supra and suit property is forming part of Sy.No.10 of Cholaghatta Village. 3.18 Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants No.3 and 4 did not appear before the Court and they were placed ex parte. Defendants No.1 and 2 appeared before the Court and filed written statement wherein they denied the allegations made in the plaint. 3.19 They further contended that proviso to Section 6 (1) of the Wakf Act, if one year has expired from the date of publication of gazette notification, no suit shall be entertained by the Tribunal. As such, suit filed after the lapse of 51 years from the date of gazette notification, suit is barred by law of limitation and sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.20 Defendants further contended that as per Section 4 of the Wakf Act, a detailed survey and enquiry has been conducted and suit property is the Muslim burial ground and thus notified in the gazette and thus sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.20 Defendants further contended that as per Section 4 of the Wakf Act, a detailed survey and enquiry has been conducted and suit property is the Muslim burial ground and thus notified in the gazette and thus sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.21 Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal raised following issues: 1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that Sunni Khabrastan (Grave Yard) claimed by Defendant 1 and 2 is situated in Sy.No.10 of Agasanakallu Village of Chitradurga District? 3. Whether plaintiff further proves that the gazette notification dated 10.12.2010 and corrigendum dated 15.6.2011 are null and void and not binding on plaintiff ? 4. Whether plaintiff further proves interference by Defendants? 5. Whether Plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration as sought for? 6. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as sought for? 7. To what decree or order the parties are entitled to ? 3.22 In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, Sri. J.M. Jayakumar got examined as PW1 and placed on record as many as twenty documents which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P1 to P20, comprising of original sale deed dated 09.07.1956, certified copy of the partition deed, RTC extract, Index of Land, Conversion Order, approved Layout plan, No objection Certificate obtained from City Municipal Council of Chitradurga, certified copy of the judgment passed in OS No.286/1987, certified copy of the order passed in RA No.99/2000, certified copy of the Order passed in WP No.26335/2010, certified copy of the Corrigendum dated 15.06.2011 issued by Sub-Registrar, certified copy of the enquiry report dated 27.12.2016 issued by Enquiry Officer/CEO of Wakf Board, certified copy of the Endorsement given by the Civil Judge, Chitradurga regarding destruction of record in Miscellaneous Appeal No.3/1988, photocopy of the certified copy of the Judgment in Miscellaneous Appeal No.3/1988, certified copy of the gazette notification dated 06.01.1965, Endorsement furnished by the Tahsildar, certified copy of the judgment in Municipal R.P. No.39/1987-88 by the Divisional Commissioner, certified copies of the Village Map of Cholaghatta and Agasanakallu villages, certified copy of the Public Notice dated 10.12.2010. 3.23 As against the material evidence placed on record by the plaintiff, on behalf of the defendant, Sri. 3.23 As against the material evidence placed on record by the plaintiff, on behalf of the defendant, Sri. Mazharullah Khan is examined as DW1 and he placed on record four documents which are exhibited and marked as Exhibits D1 to D4 comprising of authorization letter, certified copy of the Gazette Notification dated 06.01.1965, certified copy of the survey report, certified copy of the corrigendum dated 15.06.2011. 3.24 On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned Presiding Officer of the Wakf Tribunal, heard the arguments of both sides and allowed the suit claim filed by the plaintiff inter alia holding in paragraphs No.14 to 16 as under: 14. The The suggestion to PW.1 in the cross-examination that, in Sy.No.10 of Agasanakallu Village, there is muslim burial ground shows that the defendants do not claim that muslim burial ground is in Sy.No.10 of Cholagatta Village. suggestion was made to PW.1 during the cross- examination that southern portion of the suit property comes within the limits of Agasanakallu Village, which is denied by the witness. In proof of the said suggestion, the defendants have not produced any documentary evidence. On the other hand, the plaintiff has produced the Village maps of Cholagatta Village and Agasanakallu Village at Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19 respectively. On perusal of the maps, it is found that, Sy.No.10 of Cholagatta Village is adjoining on the northern side of Halla, which is stated to be the boundary between Agasanakallu boundary and Cholagatta boundary. Sy.No.10 of Agasanakallu Village is not situated adjoining the boundary of Cholagatta Village. Sy. No.10 of Agasanakallu Village and Sy. No.10 of Cholagatta Village are not adjoining properties. They are situated far away from each other. Therefore, there is no chance of encroachment of Sy. No.10 of Agasanakallu Village by the owners of Sy. No.10 of Cholagatta Village and vice-versa. 15. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant No.2 has examined its authorised officer as DW.1 who has reiterated the contents of written statement. In the cross- examination, he has deposed that, he do not know about the documents at Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. He admitted that, it may be true that, Ex.P.3 is standing in the name of the plaintiff. 15. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant No.2 has examined its authorised officer as DW.1 who has reiterated the contents of written statement. In the cross- examination, he has deposed that, he do not know about the documents at Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. He admitted that, it may be true that, Ex.P.3 is standing in the name of the plaintiff. He has deposed that, the name of the plaintiff might have been entered in the index of land; he do not know whether the plaintiff has got converted the suit land as per Ex.P.12; he do not know about the formation of layouts and demarcation of sites and sale to persons as per Ex.P.6; he do not know about the NOC issued by the municipal authority. He has deposed that, he has seen the suit property, but he has not observed if 4 or 5 houses are built up in the said land. He has admitted that, except Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.4 they are not having any document to show that, disputed property belongs to wakf. Said cross-examination of DW.1 shows that, he do not know anything about the suit property. 16. On going through Ex.D.2, it is the copy of the gazette notification dated 6th January 1965, which is also marked at Ex.P.15. This document reveals that, the property situated in Agasanakallu is the Graveyard of Sunni Community, but it does not show the suit property as the Graveyard. Ex.P.3 is the copy of the notice alleged to have been issued on 8.7.1963 to one Janab Mohammed, the President of Anjuman-e-Darul Huda, Agasanakallu, Chitradurga Taluk. Therefore. this document do not show the notice was issued to the plaintiff and the public. Ex.D.4 is the corrigendum, the copy of which is at Ex.P.11. As per the admission given by DW.1, there is no other documents except Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.4 to show that, the suit property is a wakf property. As already found Ex.D.2 and Ex.D.3 do not show that, the suit property as wakf property. Thus, except Ex.D.4, no other document to show that, the suit property is the wakf property. Ex.D.4 cannot be considered as the valid document in proof of the fact that, the suit property is the wakf property, because this document is not based on the proper survey conducted by the Taluk Surveyor and the report of the Tahsildar. Thus, except Ex.D.4, no other document to show that, the suit property is the wakf property. Ex.D.4 cannot be considered as the valid document in proof of the fact that, the suit property is the wakf property, because this document is not based on the proper survey conducted by the Taluk Surveyor and the report of the Tahsildar. In fact, the report of the Tahsildar based on the survey conducted by the Taluk Surveyor speaks against the corrigendum. Similarly, the order of the enquiry officer at Ex.P.12 speaks that, there is no any mark on the suit property to show that it is the Muslim graveyard. Thus, it is difficult to comprehend as to on what basis the defendants issued the notice as per Ex.P.20 and issued the corrigendum Ex.P.11/Ex.D.4. On the basis of the above discussions, I hold that, the plaintiff has proved issue Nos.1 to 6. On the other hand the defendants have failed to prove their case that, the suit property is the Muslim Graveyard and it is a wakf property. Hence, I answer Issue Nos.1 to 6 in the "affirmative." 4. Being aggrieved by the same, it is the second defendant who has filed the present revision petition before this Court on the following grounds: That, the Judgment and Decree dated 08.07.2019 passed by the Learned the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Bengaluru Division, Bengaluru, in OS No. 4/2016 is arbitrary, contrary to facts and law. That, the Judgment and Decree dated 08.07.2019 passed by the Learned the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal, Bengaluru Division, Bengaluru, in OS No. 4/2016 is violation of principles of natural justice. That, the Judgment and Decree passed by the Learned the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal in O.S No.4/2016 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and without application of judicial mind in view of the fact and circumstances of the case. That, the Learned the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal in O.S No.4/2016, has failed to appreciate defense taken by these Petitioners' in their Written Statement and Evidence adduced by these Petitioners' and the documents marked therein. That, the Learned the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal in O.S No.4/2016, has failed to appreciate defense taken by these Petitioners' in their Written Statement and Evidence adduced by these Petitioners' and the documents marked therein. That, the Learned the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal has failed to appreciate the issues raised by this Appellant in their Written Statement about the survey report submitted by the Survey Commissioner, Government of Karnataka to the Government and recommended the declare the land in Sy No.10, situated at Cholagatta (Garehatti), Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk and District measuring 1 Acre is Kabrasthan Sunni, Agasanakallu is Anjuman-e- Darul Huda, to Wakf Property attached Agasanakallu. (as per Exhibit-D-3). That, the Learned the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the evidence of DW-1 is corroborating with the contents of Ex D-3. As it is the case of Petitioners' that the Survey Commissioner appointed by the Government conducted the survey at the spot and enquired in detail the concerned Muthavalli and local Mussalies of the locality after giving prior notice by adopting the procedure as per the provisions contemplated under Section 4 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (as Amended, 2013) and submitted the report before he Government and recommended to declare the said property as Wakf Property. That, the Learned the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the evidence of DW-1 is corroborating with the contents of Ex D-2. The case of the Petitioners' is that in pursuance of the report submitted by the Survey Commissioner, the Petitioner No.1 herein declared the said Property is Wakf Property and published in Karnataka state Gazette as per the provisions contemplated under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (as Amended, 2013). In view of the above said these documents. The Court below ought to have dismissed the suit, on the contrary, the Court below committed a serious error in decree the suit and therefore, on these ground alone, the judgment and decree of the Court below is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. That, the Learned the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal has failed to appreciate statement made by the local Mussalies before the Survey Commissioner at the time of enquiry under Section of 4 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (as Amended, 2013) of Ex D-3, its reproduced as the father of the Respondent No.1 herein late Mr. That, the Learned the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal has failed to appreciate statement made by the local Mussalies before the Survey Commissioner at the time of enquiry under Section of 4 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (as Amended, 2013) of Ex D-3, its reproduced as the father of the Respondent No.1 herein late Mr. J.M Mahalingappa had level the burial ground and demolished the existing structures of burial by using Bulldozers, also boundary stones which was used protect the said burial ground. The Court below has therefore committed a serious error in decree the suit and therefore, interference of this Hon'ble Court is warranted. That, the Learned the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the impugned order and judgment is passed based on obsolete laws/ precedents. That, the Learned the Karnataka Wakf Tribunal has failed appreciated statement of made by this Petitioners/Defendants that the Suit Schedule Property is notified Wakf Property and once property is declared as Wakf its always become no one can change the characteristic and nature of the property whatsoever. 5. Smt. Azra Dundge, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contented that when once the properties notified as the Wakf property and if there is no challenge within one year, as per Section 6 (1) of the Wakf Act, there cannot be any further application filed at all by the alleged aggrieved party. Therefore the application filed by the plaintiff after the lapse of 51 years is per se barred by limitation which has not been taken note of by the learned Presiding Officer of the Wakf Tribunal and allowed the application filed by the plaintiff resulting in miscarriage of justice. 6. She would further contend that at an undisputed point of time, after conducting a survey, the suit property has been notified as the Wakf property. Thereafter, there was yet another survey conducted and based on the survey, Corrigendum is issued on 15.06.2011, Survey report is at Exhibit D3 and Corrigendum is at Ex.D4 which would make it clear that the suit property is the Wakf property which has been ignored by the learned Trial Judge by placing undue probative value on Exhibit P18 and Exhibit P19 resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision of petition. 7. Per contra, counsel for the respondents Sri. Manoj Gowda represents Sri. Mahesh B.J. supports the impugned order. 7. Per contra, counsel for the respondents Sri. Manoj Gowda represents Sri. Mahesh B.J. supports the impugned order. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the plaintiff has successfully established that suit property which is the land in Sy.No.10 of Cholakatta Village is a different property which is subject matter of the notification issued by the second defendant on 06.01.1965 and Corrigendum dated 15.06.2011. (ii) Whether the second defendant would establish that the suit property is the property of the Wakf by notification No.KBW/EDM/08/CTA/2010-2011? (iii) Whether the inclined order is suffering from any legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for interference? (iv) What order? 10. Regarding Points No. 1 to 3 : Suit property is admittedly the land in Survey No.10 of Cholaghatta Village as referred to supra. So far as Gazette Notification dated 06.01.1965, it is crystal clear that it was the Muslim burial ground situated in Agasanakallu Village in Survey No.10. As per the notification, said property being the Muslim burial ground is notified as Wakf property. There is a corrigendum that has been issued on 15.06.2011 based on the subsequent survey report Exhibit D3. 11. At any rate, what has been notified as Wakf property is the land in Sy.No.10 of Agasanakallu Village not Cholaghatta Village. 12. Plaintiff claimed right over the suit property based on the sale deed executed by Sri. Giriyappa on 09.07.1956 marked as Exhibit P1. Subsequently there was a partition between plaintiff and his brother on 29.07.1968 which was also registered. The certified copy of the partition deed is marked as Exhibit P2. Mutation of the revenue entries has taken place in MR No.6/1968-69. 13. As the area in and around suit property got developed, plaintiff wanted to develop the suit land also for non-agricultural purpose. Therefore he applied for conversion of the land for non agricultural use before the Deputy Commissioner. 14. At that juncture, after due enquiry including the spot inspection, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 17.11.1984 for conversion of the land in Sy.No.10 of Cholaghatta Village for non-agricultural purpose. 15. Therefore he applied for conversion of the land for non agricultural use before the Deputy Commissioner. 14. At that juncture, after due enquiry including the spot inspection, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 17.11.1984 for conversion of the land in Sy.No.10 of Cholaghatta Village for non-agricultural purpose. 15. Plaintiff thereafter formed residential sites and sold it to several people and persons who have purchased the residential sites have constructed buildings after obtaining necessary license from the City Municipal Council, Chitradurga. 16. When all these developments have taken place in respect of the suit property absolutely there was no objection raised by any of the defendants. But, in the year 1987, it is Sri. Patel Mohammod Noorulla, who interfered with the peaceful possession of the suit property which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for injunction in OS No.286/1987 which ultimately ended in the judgment in favour of the plaintiff before the First Appellate Court in RA No.99/2000 vide Ex.P9. 17. It is also found from records that the suit was challenged in a Miscellaneous Appeal in MA No.3/1988 which was dismissed and against which the RA No.99/2000 was filed. Thus, the ownership of the plaintiff was upheld and the interference was restrained in the said suit. 18. When Muhammed Noorulla failed to get an order through the Civil Court, he filed an application before the Divisional Commissioner in RP No.39/1987-88 challenging the license issued by the City Municipal Council, Chitradurga on the basis of the Gazette Notification pertaining to Agasanakallu Village. The Divisional Commissioner, after entertaining the objections and verifying the records, dismissed the said appeal. Order of the Divisional Commissioner is marked at Exhibit P17. 19. When all such efforts were failed, Mohammod Noorulla did not allow the dispute to rest there and then challenged the same by issuing one more notice from the by getting issued a suo motu notice under Section 54 of the Act in respect of the sites formed in Sy.No.10 of Cholaghatta Village which was subject matter challenged by the plaintiff in W. P No.26335/2010. 20. A co-ordinate bench of this Court by Order dated 16.08.2011 vide Exhibit P10, directed to hold an enquiry. Thashildar was appointed to find out as to the contentions raised by the parties. Tahsildar, after holding an enquiry gave a report that suit property is different from the property that is subject matter of the notification. 21. 20. A co-ordinate bench of this Court by Order dated 16.08.2011 vide Exhibit P10, directed to hold an enquiry. Thashildar was appointed to find out as to the contentions raised by the parties. Tahsildar, after holding an enquiry gave a report that suit property is different from the property that is subject matter of the notification. 21. Being aggrieved by the same, one more notice got issued and a survey came to be conducted vide Exhibit D3. 22. It is only after that survey report, much later after issuing the original notification in the year 1965, a further Corrigendum notification is issued on 15.06.2011 vide Exhibit D4. 23. Wakf Tribunal considered all these aspects of the matter and discussed in detail as to the probative value of the Corrigendum notification dated 15.06.2011 and its' effect on the suit property in the impugned order. 24. In paragraphs No.14 to 16 of the impugned Order, the learned Presiding Officer of Wakf Tribunal has dealt in detail as to the probative value of the documents that has been placed on record. While so considering the case of the parties, learned Presiding Officer of the Wakf Tribunal, has noted that there was a specific suggestion made to PW1 that the suit property is falling under is part of Sy.No.10 of Agasanakallu Village which has been denied by the plaintiff. 25. It is in this context that Exhibits P18 and P19 assumes importance. Exhibits P18 and P19 are the village maps of Agasanakallu Village as well as Cholaghatta Village. 26. On comparison of those village maps, learned Trial Judge has recorded a categorical finding that on the Northern side of the suit property there lies a storm water drain and thereafter the property in Survey No.10 in Agasanakallu Village is situated to and has recorded a categorical finding that there is no nexus between the Sy.No.10 of Agasanakallu Village and land in Sy.No.10 of Cholaghatta Village and both the properties are far away from each other. 27. Such a finding is recorded not only based on the report of the Tahsildar, but also on comparison of the village maps. 28. 27. Such a finding is recorded not only based on the report of the Tahsildar, but also on comparison of the village maps. 28. Thus, the learned Trial Judge has rightly concluded that the suit property is different from the property that is comprising of the notification and corrigendum notification issued by the Government in respect of the Wakf property which is the property in Sy.No.10 of Agasanakallu Village and not the Cholaghatta Village. 29. On the contrary, in the evidence of DW1, there is no material except self-proving testimony and the corrigendum notification issued on 15.06.2011. Corrigendum Notification issued in the year 1965 is nothing but a self-serving document and did not create any right, title or interest in the second defendant to get the application dismissed. 30. The learned Presiding Officer has taken note of all these aspects of the matter and by supplying the cogent, convincing and logical reasons which are sound enough to support the result of the application and therefore, at no stretch of imagination the impugned order can be termed as perverse or suffering from any legal infirmities. 31. Under such circumstances from the above discussion, Points No.1 is answered in 'affirmative' and Points No.2 and 3 in the 'negative' respectively. 32. Regarding point number 4 - In view the finding of this Court on Points No.1 to 3 as above, following order: ORDER : (i) Civil Revision Petition is meritless and hereby dismissed.