Order:- On a direction by this Court in W.P. No. 25 of 1962 the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned made a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Court of Subordinate Judge at Madurai. The subject-matter of the reference is as to who is entitled to receive the compensation for the land acquired. The Revenue Divisional Officer, while passing the award, proceeded on the basis that the second respondent was the owner of the property. The petitioners in the writ petition who are the Muthavallis claim that it belongs to a mosque and is wakf property. It is this controversy that remains to be resolved in the reference under section 18. The learned Subordinate Judge, in the petition by the Wakf Board to implead it as party to the reference, apparently misunderstood the scope of the reference and presumed that it was for claiming enhanced compensation. The Subordinate Judge dismissed that petition on the view that section 59 of the Muslim Wakfs Act, 1954, was a general section, that section 58 of that Act was applicable, and that the Wakf Board was neither a proper nor necessary party. On that view, he dismissed the petition filed by the Board. This petition is to revise that order. I am of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge was clearly in error in dismissing the petition. I cannot accept his view that section 59 has no application. That section reads: “In any suit or proceedings in respect of a wakf or any wakf property by or against a stranger to the wakf or any other person, the Board may appear and plead as a party to the suitor proceeding.” There is no reason why a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act should not be regarded as a proceeding within the meaning of section 59. Of course, the proceeding must be in respect of a wakf. But whether it is wakf or not is the question that the reference itself raises. In such a case the section will have to be applied on the allegation of the Wakf Board, leaving final determination of the character of the property to the decision in the reference itself. Mr. Ebrahim for the second respondent argues that the property is not a wakf property, for it had never been recognised as such under section 5 of the Muslim Wakfs Act. Mr. Ebrahim for the second respondent argues that the property is not a wakf property, for it had never been recognised as such under section 5 of the Muslim Wakfs Act. But that question cannot be decided finally in a petition to implead. The object of section 59 appears to be that the Board being the body in which the general superintendence over all wakfs is vested, it will be in the interest of the wakf that the Board appears and pleads as a party to the proceedings. That being the policy of section 59, I do not think it cannot be properly invoked in this case. The learned Subordinate Judge disposed of section 59 merely observing that it is a general provision and has given no other reason for his not applying it to the instant case. Section 58 of the Muslim Wakfs Act is entirely concerned with proceedings before the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act and does not appear to cover a reference under section 18 of that Act pending in a civil Court. The learned Subordinate Judge was also not right in his view that the petition to implead was barred. Section 59 of the Muslim Wakfs Act places no limitation for the appearance of the Board as a party. This petition is allowed. No costs. R.M. ----- Petition allowed.