This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the revision petitioners to strike off the petition in W.O.P.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the Wakf Tribunal/Sub Court, Dindigul.

2. Therespondent filed W.O.P.No.2 of 2009 for declaring the order of the second petitioner in this revision made in proceedings Na.Ka.No.616/2006/B15/DGL, dated 18.09.2009 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 110. 2009, is null and void and for setting aside the same.

3. It is stated by the respondent in the wakf original petition that the second petitioner has taken over the management of the Wakf by the above said proceedings and the action of the petitioners is against the provision of the Act and therefore, the order passed by the second petitioner in taking over the management is to be set aside. Though in the petition various averments have been made, for the purpose of disposing of the revision petition on technical grounds, there is no need to go into the facts of the case.

4. As stated supra, the wakf original petition was filed under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act 43 of 1995 before the learned Sub Judge, Dindigul (The Wakf Tribunal) for setting aside the order of the second petitioner made in Na.Ka.No.616/2006/B15/DGL, dated 18.09.2009, by which direct Management was taken over by the revision petitioners.

5. Mr.K.K.Senthil, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that under Section 65 of the Wakf Act, the Board has got the power to take over direct management of certain wakfs and if any person is aggrieved by the order of the Board, he can file a revision or appeal against the order before the State Government as provided under Section 65(2) of the Act and without filing a revision or appeal as per Section 65(2) of the Act, it is not open to the respondent to file a revision before the Wakf Tribunal invoking the provision under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995. He further submitted that when the Act provides a remedy that has to be invoked and without invoking the appellate remedy as provided in the Act, it is not open to the respondent to file a revision under Section 83(2) of the Wakf Act.

6. Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, the Tribunal was constituted for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the wakf or wakf property and as per Section 83(2), any mutawalli, person interested in a wakf or any other person aggrieved by an order made under this Act, may make an application before the Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to Wakf. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order passed by the second petitioner is also an order passed under the said Act and therefore, under Section 83, the same can be challenged by filing an application before the Tribunal. He further relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2005 (1) L.W. 676, (Salam Khan v. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and others), wherein the Honourable Chief Justice MR.MARKANDEY KATJU as he then was, held that, the words "any dispute, question or other matters relating to a Wakf or Wakf property" are, words of very wide connotation. Any dispute, question or other matters whatsoever and in whatever manner which arises relating to a Wakf or Wakf property can be decided by the Wakf Tribunal.

7. Relying upon the said passage in the judgment, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order, by which direct management was taken over by the Wakf Board is also an order as stated in Section 83(2) and hence, the respondent is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal by filing an application under Section 83(2) and that cannot be followed.

8. On the other hand, Mr.K.K.Senthil, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment rendered in W.P.N