Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard Ms. Tanisha Jahangir for the revisionist. None has appeared for the opposite party even in the revised call.

2. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 12.2.2001 passed in Misc. No. 31 of 1996, under Section 52 (2) read with Section 71 of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960.

3. By means of this application, an order dated 1.8.1995 passed by the Controller/President of the U.P. Sunni Waqf Board was challenged, which removed the applicant-revisionist from the post of Mutwalli of Waqf No. 122, Waqf Mohd. Noor Khan, Aligarh.

4. The application was filed on the ground that the order of the revisionists’ removal from the post of Mutwalli had been passed without affording him adequate opportunity of hearing.

5. The case of the revisionist was that on the receipt of the show-cause notice, he had filed his objection on 7.10.1995 and 21.10.1995 alongwith documents but he had no intimation of the date of hearing namely 25.5.1995 and without hearing him, the order of his removal was passed.

6. Before this Court, the submission of counsel for the revisionist is that the application has been rejected, despite a finding having been recorded that sufficient opportunity was not given to the applicant-revisionist by the Board, prior to passing the order of his removal.

7. The second contention is that the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aligarh in the impugned order has held that it had no jurisdiction in the matter inasmuch as it was not a Waqf Tribunal as it had not been constituted in accordance with the provision of the Waqf Act, 1996. Alongwith the revision, the revisionist has annexed a copy of notification dated 11.3.1998, whereby the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 read with Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995, constituted the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aligarh as a Waqf Tribunal. It is therefore contended that the impugned order is vitiated on this ground as well.

8. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

9. The proceedings by the Board against the revisionist were under Section 55 of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 and therein order was passed on 1.8.1995. The Misc. Case No. 31 was filed against this order before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aligarh, a duly constituted Waqf Tribunal under the provisions of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960. The U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 stood repeal on the enforcement of the Waqf Act, 1995 with effect from 1.1.1996, by Section 112, of the said Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 112 of the Waqf Act, 1995 reads as follows :

“(3) If, immediately before the commencement of this Act, in any State, there is in force in that State, any law which corresponds to this Act that corresponding law shall stand repealed:

Provided that such repeal shall not affect the previous operation of that corresponding law, and subject thereto, anything done or any action taken in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the corresponding law shall be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act as if this Act was in force on the day on which such things were done or action was taken.”

10. The Misc. No. 31 of 1996 had been instituted on 16.1.1996, invoking Section 55(2) read with Section 71 of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960, which on that date, stood repealed.

11. In the context of the repeal of the Act of 1960, by Section 112 (3) of the Act of 1995, and taking it into account, the order dated 1.8.1995 direction removal of a Mutwalli would be deemed to be one under Section 64 of the Act of 1995.

12. Under the new Act of 1995, an order of removal of a Mutwalli is appealable to the Tribunal under Section 64 (4) of the Act. Therefore, on the date, the Misc. Case No. 31 of 1996 was registered, the order of the revisionists’ removal from the post of Mutwalli was appealable under the Act of 1995