ORDER : T.MADHAVI DEVI, J. W.P.No.36845 of 2017 has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring letter No.3/WPO/KIZ/2011 dt.31.10.2011 and letter No.M1/54/RR/Prot/84-Supply-1 dt.10.12.2013 of respondent No.7 and Muntakhab No.54/M1/Tel-I/RR/84 dt.27.03.2004 published in A.P. Gazette No.22 dt.27.05.2004 at page No.599, as illegal and as contrary to Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 and consequently to set aside the same and suspend the proceedings to the extent it concerns the lands/plots of the petitioners in Survey No.66/1 situated at Trimulgherry Village, Secunderabad, Hyderabad District and to pass such other order or orders. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of W.P.No.36845 of 2017 are that the land in Survey No.62 of Trimulgherry Village was in the name of Koh-e-Imam Zamin from 1330 Fasli (1920 AD) up to 1339 Fasli (1929 AD) as per the correspondence available in Tahsil’s File No.40/11 of 1343 Fasli. In 1339 Fasli corresponding to 1929 AD, the land was resumed by the Government from Koh-e-Imam Zamin and it was in the possession of the Government. In 1351 Fasli, i.e., 1941 AD, the Collector, Aatraf Balda District addressed the Letter No.1129 to the Tahsildar North that the land should be auctioned under Laoni rules and accordingly, auction proposals were submitted for his confirmation. It is stated that a notification for auction of this land falling in Survey No.62 of Trimulgherry was issued and auction was conducted and one Sri Kalika Prasad became the auction purchaser for Rs.250/- and the auction was confirmed by the Collector vide his letter No.341 dt.04.03.1352 Fasli, i.e., 1942 AD and the possession of land admeasuring Ac.5.08 guntas was also delivered to Sri Kalika Prasad as per the letter of Moulvi Syed Mustafa Ali Khan, Collector of Hyderabad District addressed to the Tahsildar North and by letter No.1642 dated 29 Maher, 1352 Fasli, the Tahsildar informed the Maqdam Patwari of Trimulgherry Village that higher office of District through Letter No.341 dated 04 Bahman 1352 Fasli, the land has been finally auctioned through the three times auction in the name of Mr. Kalika Prasad for a sum of Rs.250/- and that the auction bidder had deposited the said amount in the treasury of the District at the Ledger Folio No.154 dated 2 nd Bahman, 1352 Fasli and that the possession of the land be delivered to the purchaser and accordingly, in Jamabandi of 1352 Fasli, the alienation of the patta be caused in the name of the purchaser and the proceedings be submitted at the time of Jamabandi. However, without reference to the above documents, on 18.01.1951, Muntakhab No.13 of 1951 was issued in respect of the land falling in Survey No.62 (old) new Survey No.66/1 by the Commissioner of Atiyat. It is stated that no notice and no opportunity was given to Sri Kalika Prasad who was already in the possession of the property as pattadar much before the proceedings of the Commissioner of Atiyat dt.18.01.1951. It is stated that at Column No.8 of Muntakhab No.13 of 1951, it is mentioned that by order dt.12.12.1950 of the Additional Collector of Hyderabad District, the Inam land was restored in the name of Chilla Hazrat Imam Zamin Ali Moosa Raza Ale Salaam perpetually and that Syed Ali Zaidi has been appointed and sanctioned the performance of service. It is stated that the alleged proceedings dt.12.12.1950 of the Additional Collector restoring the land back to the Dargah are not available and further that neither the auction that was conducted nor the confirmation nor the handing over of possession to the auction purchaser was ever challenged by the institution. It is stated that on 14.10.1952 Syed Mohammed Ali, stating to be the Trustee of Koh-e-Imam Zamin, filed a petition before the Collector, Hyderabad under Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli stating that during 1331 Fasli, the Inam lands were taken under Government supervision and that on 18.01.1951 Muntakhab No.13 of 1951 was issued, wherein along with other survey numbers, even Survey No.66/1 was mentioned and he requested that necessary corrections be made in the settlement records and the Collector, Hyderabad, without any notice to Mr. Kalika Prasad, had passed an order on 04.11.1951 directing necessary corrections to be made in Sethwar and Vusool Baqi of Bandobast in view of the Muntakhab. It is stated that the Collector did not consider the earlier resumption, auction, confirmation of auction and giving of possession to Mr. Kalika Prasad by the very same office of the Collector. Kalika Prasad, had passed an order on 04.11.1951 directing necessary corrections to be made in Sethwar and Vusool Baqi of Bandobast in view of the Muntakhab. It is stated that the Collector did not consider the earlier resumption, auction, confirmation of auction and giving of possession to Mr. Kalika Prasad by the very same office of the Collector. It is stated that in 1353 Fasli, Survey had taken place and the rectification was ordered on the basis of the said survey. It is stated that the Collector could have ordered for rectification of survey errors only if the petition is filed within two years from the date of settlement and if the period exceeds 2 years, he could not have entertained such petitions and in this case, the Collector order of 1952 is after a lapse of 10 years of such survey. It is stated that in the meantime, Mr. Kalika Prasad passed away and in the year 1972, the son of Kalika Prasad, Mr. Munnalal filed a petition before the Tahsildar Urban requesting to record his name in the revenue records and the Tahsildar referred the same to the Collector stating that old Survey No.62 land admeasuring Ac.5.08 guntas was auctioned in favour of Mr. Kalika Prasad and that the sale was also confirmed by the Collector, but his name did not find place in the records and he requested for guidance of the Collector in this regard. Mr. Munnalal was accordingly informed to approach the Collector under Section 15(2) of the Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 Fasli as the petition filed by him cannot be entertained. Accordingly, Mr. Munnalal approached the Collector in File No.E3/14793/76 under Section 15(2) of the Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulation, 1358 Fasli for correction of entries in the village records. It is stated that by order dt.10.02.1977, the Collector, Hyderabad District passed an order holding that the faisal patti for the village for the year 1952-53 was verified and found that the other proposal of the Tahsildar was sanctioned by Nazim E Jamabandi with an endorsement that implementation be kept pending. It is stated that by order dt.10.02.1977, the Collector, Hyderabad District passed an order holding that the faisal patti for the village for the year 1952-53 was verified and found that the other proposal of the Tahsildar was sanctioned by Nazim E Jamabandi with an endorsement that implementation be kept pending. But still, the Tahsil proposals were irregularly implemented and that Survey No.66/1 was recorded in the name of Koh-e-Imam Zamin as pattedar in 1953 and in 1954-55, Khasra Pahani, the name of Koh-e-Mahboob Hussain continued as pattedar and there is no competent sanction for such an entry in pahani of 1953 as per faisal patti and hence it was irregular and unauthorised. It was observed that as per the orders of Alwal Talukdar, Atraf Balda, the implementation of the auction should have been made. Therefore, the Collector directed mutation of the name of Mr. Munnalal, S/o Mr. Kalika Prasad to be implemented in the village records. 3. It is stated that one Mr. Henry Harwood filed a petition under the provisions of Inam Abolition Act for grant of occupancy rights including for the lands falling under Survey No.66/1 claiming that his father was having possession of the said lands and Mr. Munnalal, S/o Kalika Prasad filed objection petition to the same and after hearing both the parties, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order dt.25.09.1981 dismissing the said claim petition. The Revenue Divisional Officer, in the order No.C4/5664/69, also observed that the orders of the Collector directing correction of settlement records are valid and that the Tahsildar has already issued ryotwari patta in favour of the Secretary, Muslim Waqf Board. Aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mr. Munnalal filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records under Section 166(b) of the Land Revenue act and in this petition, Mr. Henry Harwood impleaded himself and one Sri Ramchandra Reddy filed implead petition claiming to have entered into agreement of sale of the land in question. The Waqf Board also filed a counter being a party to it and after hearing all the parties, the Commissioner had passed a detailed order in File No.P5/3434/81 dt.21.11.1983 holding that the land in question was resumed by the Government far back in 1339 Fasli and due to resumption, it has become Government land and ceased to be Inam land. The Waqf Board also filed a counter being a party to it and after hearing all the parties, the Commissioner had passed a detailed order in File No.P5/3434/81 dt.21.11.1983 holding that the land in question was resumed by the Government far back in 1339 Fasli and due to resumption, it has become Government land and ceased to be Inam land. It was further observed that there was no challenge to the resumption orders or taking back the possession of the land and further held that auction was conducted under the orders of the Collector and that the same was also confirmed and that the sale has become final. It was further held that the order passed by the Collector in the year 1952 ordering corrections of settlement records was in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 87 of the Land Revenue Act and hence void. 4. In the meantime, due to the death of Mr. Kalika Prasad who left behind 5 daughters and a son, the daughters filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.1886 of 1989 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad and on contest, by judgment dt.29.12.1989, a preliminary decree was passed holding that plaintiffs 1 to 5 (daughters) are entitled to 1/6 th share each and plaintiff No.7 and defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to 1/30 th share each and the suit was dismissed against plaintiffs 6 and 8 to 10 and final decree was passed on 05.02.1990 on the basis of a compromise between the parties. It is stated that on the basis of the above decree, the names of the daughters as well as the son were incorporated in the revenue records and under registered sale deed Nos.294 of 1990, 1316 of 1991, 1317 of 1991, 1377 of 1991 and 1378 of 1991, M/s. Vanitha Cooperative Society had purchased an extent of Ac.4.00 guntas from the daughters and thereafter, it converted the land into a layout with the approval of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board vide resolution CRB (14) dt.13.03.1990 and sold the plots to individuals. It is stated that the layout sanctioned by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board was not released due to civil dispute raised by Sri P.Ramchandra Reddy in O.S.No.1337 of 1987 and the suit was decreed in part on 25.04.1994 holding that P. Ramchandra Reddy would derive only 1/6 th share of Mr. It is stated that the layout sanctioned by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board was not released due to civil dispute raised by Sri P.Ramchandra Reddy in O.S.No.1337 of 1987 and the suit was decreed in part on 25.04.1994 holding that P. Ramchandra Reddy would derive only 1/6 th share of Mr. Munnalal and Mr. P. Ramchandra Reddy thereafter filed A.S.No.134 of 1996 and then second appeal in S.A.No.980 of 2002, which were both dismissed on 05.03.2004 and 21.06.2005 respectively. Later, another suit in O.S.No.12 of 2005 filed by one Mrs. Ganga Devi and her children with a plea to declare O.S.No.1337 of 1987 as null and void and to divide the property into 7 shares, was also decreed on 28.01.2008 ex parte, but since the society was not made a party to the same, the society filed first appeal in C.C.C.A.No.201 of 2009 before this Court and the same was allowed on 30.04.2011, against which SLP (C) Nos.19817 of 2011 and 21342 of 2011 were filed and both were dismissed on 28.07.2017. 5. It is submitted that the petitioners herein and also respondents 8 to 17 are purchasers of the plots from M/s. Vanitha Cooperative Housing Society and are in possession of their respective plots and while so, the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board addressed the impugned letters dt.31.10.2011 and 10.12.2013 to the Sub-Registrar Office, Bowenpally not to entertain any registration over the land on the ground that the said land is Waqf land and to place the said land under prohibitory list under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908. In the meantime, Muntakhab No.54 dt.27.03.2004 was issued. The Government acquired Ac.55.10 guntas of land in Survey Nos.36/1, 39/1, 36/2, 39/2, 45, 43/1, 43/2, 44/1, 44/2, 40/1, 40/2 & 40/3 for defence purposes and there is a reference to Muntakhab No.13 dt.18.01.1951 therein and it is further observed that the balance of land under Muntakhab No.13 is under the direct control of the Waqf Board. The said Muntakhab was published in official Gazette No.22 dt.27.05.2004. The letters of the Waqf Board dt.31.10.2011 and 10.12.2013 as well as the Gazette notification No.22 dt.27.05.2004 are challenged in this Writ Petition. 6. The said Muntakhab was published in official Gazette No.22 dt.27.05.2004. The letters of the Waqf Board dt.31.10.2011 and 10.12.2013 as well as the Gazette notification No.22 dt.27.05.2004 are challenged in this Writ Petition. 6. W.P.No.28496 of 2021 is filed by two of the purchasers of the plots who had approached the Secunderabad Cantonment Board for permission to construct a residential house and the petitioners therein were informed that the permission cannot be granted due to the impugned Gazette notification of 2004 and therefore, challenging the action of the respondents in placing the land falling in Survey No.66/1 of Trimulgherry Village belonging to M/s. Vanitha Cooperative Housing Society admeasuring Ac.5.10 guntas in prohibitory list under Section 22A(1)(c) of the Registration Act, and in not allowing the petitioners to sell the open Plot No.34/A admeasuring 250 square yards in the layout due to the false claim of the Waqf Board as illegal and arbitrary, this Writ Petition has been filed. 7. Similarly, one Jai Bharath Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad Cantonment had purchased certain extent of land from one of the daughters of Kalika Prasad and a person has purchased a plot from the society and the said person died subsequently and her successors partitioned the subject plot and presented the partition deed before the Sub Registrar, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad District (respondent No.4) for registration, but the same was refused on the ground that the said property is covered under prohibitory list as it was claimed by the Telangana State Waqf Board (respondent No.6). Challenging the refusal, the said persons filed W.P.No.38208 of 2022 which was disposed of vide orders dt.12.12.2022 directing respondent No.4 therein to process the pending document No.42/2022 without insisting for ‘no objection certificate’ from respondent No.6 and to complete the process of registration duly complying with the Registration act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and that the registration of the subject document shall be treated as a provisional one so far as Schedule B property of the partition deed is concerned and that the same would also be subject to the result of the main Writ Petition. It is stated that in spite of the directions dt.12.12.2022 in W.P.No.38208 of 2022, respondent No.4 failed to register the partition deed in favour of the petitioner and other family members and therefore, the petitioner filed a contempt petition against respondent No.4 and thereafter, respondent No.4 passed an order dt.30.10.2023 refusing to register the document. Challenging the same, W.P.No.33938 of 2024 has been filed. 8. Since the land in all the 3 Writ Petitions was in new Survey No.66/1 of Trimulgherry Village and it was placed in the prohibitory list under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 on the ground that it is claimed by the Waqf Board as a waqf land by virtue of Muntakhab No.54/M1/Tel-I/RR/84 dt.27.03.2004 published in Gazette No.22 dt.27.05.2002 at page No.599, all the three Writ Petitions were clubbed together and were listed before this Court for hearing. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the above submissions which are made in the writ affidavits as recorded above, also placed reliance upon the following judgments. (1) B. Gowra Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department , 2002 (3) ALT 439 (2) Sadiq Ali Topiwala and another Vs. State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Hyderabad and others , W.P.Nos.22876 and 22921 of 2024 dt.04.03.2025 10. He submitted that in the case of B. Gowra Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department (supra), this Court has observed that in the absence of a proper survey with notices to all concerned under Section 4 of the Waqf Act, 1954, the notification of the waqf property is not valid. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further placed reliance upon the judgment given by the Telangana State Waqf Tribunal in O.S.No.5 of 2016 and O.S.No.7 of 2016 in respect of Survey Nos.18/1 and 18/2 old Survey No.17, wherein Muntakhab No.13 of 1951 was held to be invalid on the ground that since the Survey Commissioner’s report as contemplated under Section 4 of the Waqf Act is not furnished, it cannot be held that the subject land belonged to the Waqf Board and therefore, Waqf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the suits. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the decision in the case of B. Gowra Reddy Vs. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the decision in the case of B. Gowra Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department (supra) would apply to this case as well and since there was no survey conducted as contemplated under Section 4 of the Waqf Act, 1954, the Gazette Notification is not sustainable. 12. In all the 3 Writ Petitions, the Waqf Board has filed a counter affidavit claiming the land to be belonging to the Waqf Board by virtue of Muntakhab No.54/M1/Tel-I/RR/84 dt.27.03.2004 published in AP Gazette No.22 dt.27.05.2004 at page No.599. It is further stated that Nazim-e-Atiyat had issued Muntakhab No.13 on 18.11.1951 showing the old survey numbers as service Inam land as ChillaKohe Imam-e- Zamin and keeping in view of the said Muntakhab containing service Inam lands of Ac.71.03 guntas situated at Tirumalagiri Village, a Muthawalli was also appointed to perform the service to the Institutions vide Board of Revenue (LR & S) AP, Hyderabad vide No.NA4/499/75 dt.16.09.1975. Therefore, according to the Waqf Board, Survey Nos.66/1 and 66/2 mentioned in the Gazette are confirmed as Service Inam lands of the subject institution and was communicated to the Collector, Hyderabad District for its implementation and as per Khasara pahani for 1954-55, Survey Nos.66/1 and 66/2 are classified as Mafi Inam lands (Service Inam). It is further submitted that the Waqf lands were acquired by the Special Deputy Collector, Hyderabad for Defence purpose and compensation amount in respect of the said acquired Waqf lands has also been paid to the Waqf Board by the SDC L.A (Defence) Hyderabad which subsequently came under the administrative control of Ranga Reddy District vide reference No.J4/1101/1979 dt.21.03.1983 and therefore, it cannot be disputed that the subject service Inam lands belonged to the Waqf Board. It is further submitted that the name of Kohe Imam-e-Zamin is also found incorporated in the Pahani for the year 1952-53 by the Revenue Department as Mafi Inam i.e., land covered by this institution. It is further submitted that the claim of the petitioners that the land belonged to Mr. Kalika Prasad is incorrect because Mr. Kalika Prasad did not appear before the Nazim Atiyat when Inam enquiry was conducted and Muntakhab No.13 dt.18.11.1951 was issued in the name of the Waqf institution and Muthawalli was appointed by the then Board of Revenue vide orders dt.16.09.1975. Kalika Prasad is incorrect because Mr. Kalika Prasad did not appear before the Nazim Atiyat when Inam enquiry was conducted and Muntakhab No.13 dt.18.11.1951 was issued in the name of the Waqf institution and Muthawalli was appointed by the then Board of Revenue vide orders dt.16.09.1975. It is stated that the petitioners are raising the issue after a period of 65 years, i.e., from 1951 to the date of filing of W.P.No.36845 of 2017 on 31.10.2017. As regards the order of the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad dt.21.11.1983, it is submitted that though he has declared the auction confirmed by the Collector as valid but at the same time, the Muntakhab dt.18.11.1951 issued by Nazim Atiyat has not been disturbed. It is further submitted that the orders dt.21.11.1983 were passed under a revision petition filed under the RoR Act, 1971 for correction of entries in Column Nos.13 and 14 of Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 and the correction of entries in Khasra Pahani was not ordered, but simply the auction was confirmed by the Collector and therefore, the same is not applicable to and binding on the Waqf Board. It is submitted that Muntakhab No.13 of 1951 was issued under the orders of Nazim E Atiyat and they have become final under Section 13 of the Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952. It is submitted that M/s. Vanitha Cooperative Housing Society is claiming under the registered sale deeds executed by 5 daughters of Mr. Kalika Prasad and that the said sale deeds are null and void an initio since the property was the Waqf land by virtue of Muntakhab No.13 of 1951 dt.18.01.1951 and the daughters of late Kalika Prasad were having no valid title over the said service Inam land. As regards the orders in O.S.No.1886 of 1989 on the file of the I Additional City Civil Court, Hyderabad, it is stated that the said decree is in respect of the parties thereto and Waqf Board is not made a party thereto and therefore, the same is not binding on the Waqf Board. It is further submitted that as per the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.6336 of 2021 dt.28.10.2021, any dispute about the Waqf property has to be agitated before the Waqf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and therefore, W.P.No.36845 of 2017 is not maintainable. It is further submitted that as per the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.6336 of 2021 dt.28.10.2021, any dispute about the Waqf property has to be agitated before the Waqf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and therefore, W.P.No.36845 of 2017 is not maintainable. He also referred to G.O.Ms.No.15, Minority Welfare Department dt.22.09.2020 auto locking the registration of all the Waqf properties in the State and prohibited registration of such properties under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 and also that the Government issued directions to all the Panchayats and Municipal authorities not to issue any construction permission in respect of Waqf lands. Further, the learned Standing Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madanuri Sri Ramachandra Murthy Vs. Syed Jalal , (2017) 13 SCC 174 . Therefore, the Waqf Board prayed for dismissal of all of these Writ Petitions. 13. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that initially the subject land was Inam land and subsequently Inam was cancelled and the land was taken over by the Government and therefore, it became Government land and the same was put to auction sale by the Government and one Mr. Kalika Prasad has purchased the same in public auction and the sale was confirmed and he was also put in possession of the subject land. Though the Waqf Board is claiming that the waqf land was resumed in the year 1951 and Muntakhab No.13 dt.18.01.1951 was issued, there are no proceedings under which the said land has been resumed. Except for mentioning the date of the document in the impugned Muntakhab No.54 dt.27.03.2004, there is no evidence whatsoever. Further, as held by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of B. Gowra Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department (supra), an enquiry under Section 4 of the Waqf Act after issuing notice to the concerned pattedar or possessor of the subject land is necessary and in the absence of such an enquiry, the consequent Gazette notification is not valid. The relevant paragraphs in the case of B. Gowra Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department (supra) are reproduced hereunder. “31. The relevant paragraphs in the case of B. Gowra Reddy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department (supra) are reproduced hereunder. “31. If this is construed as the report of the Survey Commissioner, then the purpose of incorporation of Section 4 of the Act is frustrated. It is only a form prescribed for registering a wakf. But what is required to be done by the Survey Commissioner is not to enter the wakf as such and he is bound to enquire whether the property is a wakf property or not. He is also empowered to conduct the enquiry as was observed by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above. Mere filling of columns would not amount to report of the Survey Commissioner so as to bind the petitioners. Moreover, it is not in dispute that no notice was ever given to the occupants, who were recorded as such in the revenue register. Admittedly, the report was of 1967 by which time the petitioners were not the purchasers. They came into picture at a later point of time. But, even then the enquiry ought to project as to the notice having been given to the persons. Even according to the reports submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar and also the remarks made by the Survey Commissioner one Lakshmaiah was in actual cultivation, but according to the Deputy Commissioner Laxmaiah was in illegal occupation. Be that as it may, a notice was necessary to be given to the person who is in occupation. But, there is no such record forthcoming as to what type of notice was issued to the parties and what type of enquiry was conducted. The report of the Deputy Tahsildar cannot be construed as an enquiry report nor the proforma for the survey of wakf properties can be treated as a report of the Survey Commissioner. The report as such has to conform to the requirements of Section 4 of the Act as has been held by the Supreme Court in the catena of decisions referred to above. The report as such has to conform to the requirements of Section 4 of the Act as has been held by the Supreme Court in the catena of decisions referred to above. It is also noticed from the counter that the subject matter of the property was endowed by the owner of the land one Abbas Ali Khan into the Wakf Board in the year 1968 and the same was included in the list of wakf properties and the same was published in the gazettee dated 9.2.1989 along with other properties endowed by the same person. If this if to be accepted, it has to be held that the Wakf was registered for the first time in 1968 and there could not have been any report of the Wakf Commissioner in 1967. Further the requirements under Section 25 of the Wakf Act 1954 have to be complied with. There is not even an iota of proof of dedication by Abbas Ali Khan nor is there any Wakf deed. It is very much doubtful whether Abbas Ali Khan was alive in 1968 as can be seen from the Judgment of II Additional, City Civil Court in O.S.No.368/69 dated 31.3.1982 filed by one Abdul Qavi against Laxmaiah and others. When such statutory requirements are not followed, the further question that falls for consideration is whether still the petitioners are required to approach the appropriate Tribunal or they can agitate under Article of the Constitution of India. 32. It is true that under Section 83 of the Act any dispute arising out of wakf properties can be agitated only before the Tribunal constituted under the Act. But, in the instant cases, the very principal requirement of notice and conducting enquiry as envisaged under the Act are lacking. Therefore, the question of driving the petitioners to the Tribunal would not arise. Admittedly, the petitioners have made out their occupation rights from Mr. Rangaiah's possession and thereafter Mr. Lakshmaiah and they have purchased the land under registered sale deeds and that too after obtaining appropriate permission from the competent authority and it is also one of the contentions of the petitioners that they have acquired title by adverse possession. But, I am not inclined to adjudicate the same inasmuch as I am only concerned with the validity of the notification published in the Gazette on 9-2-1989. But, I am not inclined to adjudicate the same inasmuch as I am only concerned with the validity of the notification published in the Gazette on 9-2-1989. The decision referred to by the learned counsel for Wakf Board that the petitioners have to approach the Tribunal or the civil Court, as the case may be, even after the expiry of one year period after the publication of gazette notification is not applicable to the present cases, as that situation would not arise inasmuch as when the notice itself is lacking and no purpose will be served by approaching the Tribunal or civil Court. It is also to be noted that the report of the Survey Commissioner sent by the Government to the Wakf Board has no automatic acceptance. It is required to examine such report before publishing the list. This statutory obligation is also totally lacking in this case. When the violation of statutory provisions is made out, it is always open to the parties to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, as can be seen from various documents filed by both the parties in these matters, nothing has been established to sustain the contention that the enquiry was conducted as required under Section 4(3) of the Act. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the impugned notification is binding on the petitioners and accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to challenge the same as it is illegal and not enforceable as far as the petitioners are concerned. Accordingly, I have to reject the contention raised on behalf of the Wakf Board and also the Government in this regard. 33. It is also to be noted in this regard that though the Wakf Board has been contending that the property in question is a wakf property, which was notified in the Official Gazette as early as in 1989, (but) it is surprising to note that till today no action has been initiated either for evicting the petitioners or for recovery of possession of the wakf property and no proceedings were initiated before the Tribunal constituted under the Act. None of the revenue records even whisper about the property as belonging to Wakf Board. None of the revenue records even whisper about the property as belonging to Wakf Board. It appears that the Wakf Board has filed an appeal only against the order of granting occupancy rights to the petitioners, and that too after one and half decades which is pending before the appellate authority on which I am not inclined to make any comments. Under these circumstances, I have to necessarily hold that the notification published by the Wakf Board in the Gazette on 9-2-1989 is not valid and the same is not binding on the petitioners. Accordingly, it is set aside as far as the petitioners are concerned. So far as the relief for quashing the proceedings pending before the appellate authority under the Inams Abolition Act is concerned, I am not inclined to do so. It is open for the parties to agitate their respective rights before the appropriate authority.” 14. This judgment has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in various cases and the Hon’ble Supreme Court also has confirmed the above position. Therefore, in this case, since there is no enquiry conducted under Section 4 of the Waqf Act prior to issuance of Munthakbah No.13 of 1951, the Gazette Notification has to be held to be invalid. Further, even though the Waqf Board was a party before the Commissioner of Land Records and the Commissioner has held that the auction sale in favour of Sri Kalika Prasad has been confirmed and therefore, corrections have to be made accordingly, the Waqf Board has not chosen to challenge the said order. Further, the Waqf Tribunal also has held that without the survey under Section 4 of the Waqf Act, 1954, the notification of waqf property is not valid. The contention of the Waqf Board that the Land Acquisition Officer has paid compensation to the Waqf Board and that the petitioners have not raised objection, also cannot be sustained as the compensation was for land in Survey Nos.36/1, 39/1, 36/2, 39/2, 45, 43/1, 43/2, 44/1, 44/2, 40/1, 40/2 and 40/3 and no land was acquired in Survey No.66/1. Further the layout formed by M/s. Vanitha Cooperative Housing Society was approved by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board and but for the letters written by the Waqf Board, the registration would have been completed. Further the layout formed by M/s. Vanitha Cooperative Housing Society was approved by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board and but for the letters written by the Waqf Board, the registration would have been completed. As the orders of the Commissioner, Land Records has become final and has not been challenged by the Waqf Board and this Court also in the case of Sadiq Ali Topiwala and another Vs. State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Hyderabad and others (supra) has taken into consideration the relevant facts which are present in this case before directing the Municipality to grant building permission to the petitioners therein, this Court is of the opinion that the Waqf Board cannot claim the property on its own and therefore placing of the subject land in the prohibitory list under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908, is not warranted. The impugned orders are therefore set aside. 15. With these observations, these Writ Petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. 16. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.