ORDER:

Heard Mr.S.M.Subhani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Also heard learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and Mr.Shaik Kareemullah, learned standing counsel appearing for the respective respondents.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the Errata Notification published in W.No.32, Part II – Misc. dated 13.08.2019 to the Original A.P. Gazette Notification No.43A, Supply, Part-II dated 24.10.1963 at Sl.No.3124 in Pages 30 & 31 under Column No.9 in so far as inclusion of the land of an extent of Ac.6.51 cents & Ac.4.54 cents in Sy.No.165/1 corresponding to Sy.No.165 and 166/1 corresponding to Sy.No.166 respectively of the petitioner out of total extent of Ac.19.84 cents & Ac.13.31 cents in Sy.Nos.165 & 164 respectively, situated in Munagalapadu Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Wakf Act and for a consequential direction to the respondents to de-notify the petitioner‟s property from the impugned Errata Notification and pass such other orders as this Court deems fit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the averments made in the Writ Affidavit and various provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995, advanced elaborate arguments. He submits that one Kusupati Ramaiah, the petitioner‟s forefather purchased a total extent of Ac.19.84 cents in Sy.No.165 and Ac.13.31 cents in Sy.No.166, total admeasuring an extent of Ac.33.15 cents situated in Munagalapadu Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District, through a Registered Document No.1190/1954 dated 10.07.1954 for a valid sale consideration. He submits that during the family partition, an extent of Ac.11.05 cents i.e., the subject matter property fell to the share of the petitioner‟s father Mr.Kusupati Madanagopal, since then the petitioner‟s family was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. He submits that without verification of the relevant revenue records as also the right, title and possession of the petitioner in respect of the above mentioned property, the impugned Errata Notification was issued contrary to the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995. In elaboration, with reference to the provisions of the said Act i.e., Section 4(1) etc., he submits that the State Government may by Notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a Survey Commissioner for the survey of the Wakf lands and after making such enquiries, the Survey Commissioner of Wakf may submit his report in respect of Auqaf existing at the date of commencement of the Act in the State or in part thereof to the State Government containing the relevant particulars of Auqaf and on receipt of the said report, the State Government will forward the same to the Wakf Board for publication of List of Auqaf, as contemplated under Section 5(1) of the Act and that the Wakf Board on examining the report forward it back to the Government, within a period of six (6) months, for publication in Official Gazette, as contemplated under Section 5(2) of the Act. He submits that Section 5(4) of the Act provides that the State Government shall maintain a record of the List published under Section 5(2) of the Act from time to time and under Section 5(3) of the Act, the revenue authorities shall include the List of Auqaf referred to in Section 5(2) of the Act, while updating the Land Records and shall also take into consideration the said list, while deciding the mutation in the Land Records.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Notification published under Section 5(2) of the Act is final and conclusive, as envisaged under Section 6(4) of the Act, unless it is modified pursuant to a decision of the Tribunal under Section 6(1) of the Act and that any dispute or grievance with regard to the publication of Notification under Section 5(2) of the Act shall be raised before the Tribunal within a period of one year from the date of publication of the Notification. He co