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. 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
