Judgment :- In this writ petition the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari the order of the first respondent dated 23.6.1986 passed in W.A.No.8 of (R.C.9741/AG/74) relating to Khader Pallivasal Iddgah Gori Dakni Jamath, Ramanathapuram. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the above writ petition are as follows: “ Pallivasal Iddgah Gori Dakni Jamath, Ramanathapuram. The said Jamath through Managing Committee of which the petitioner is the Secretary, is managing Khader Pallivasal, a mosque at Ramanathapuram and Iddgah Gori Thope, a place where Muslims Ramanathapuram perform their two Idd prayers (Ramzan and Bakrith prayers) every According to the petitioner, the said Iddgah and Khader Pallivasal together remain a wakf. The said wakf and its properties including the mosque building and the Iddgah site trees thereon are managed by the Dakni Jamath through its Managing Committee for decades.” 3. The respondents 2 and 3 representing the Iddgah Committee filed W. A.No.8 of before the first respondent praying for rectification of the notification of the year published in the Gazette and to bifurcate the Iddgah and Khader Pallivasal and to recognise the Iddgah Committee as Muthav-allis of the Iddgah Wakf of Ramanathapuram on ground that there was an error in grouping the Iddgah and Khader Pallivasal while the notification of the year 1950 and that Khader Pallivasal has no right or interest over Iddgah and its property. The said application W.A.No.8 of 1985 was resisted by respondent in W.ANo.8 of 1985 contending that Khader Pallivasal and Iddgah Gori constitute one wakf and is under the management of Dakni Jamath from its inception that the Wakf Board had notified the same as one wakf in the year 1959 after detailed survey and enquiry. The further case of the respondent in W.A.No.8 of 1985 is notification made in 1959 has become final and that the petitioners in W.A.No.8 of have no manner of right over the Iddgah Gori Thope. 4. The first respondent-Wakf Board, by its order dated 22.6.1986, found that the Iddgah wakf belongs to the Iddgah Committee and not to the Khader Pallivasal and that notification issued in 1959 clubbing the Iddgah Gori Thope and Khader Pallivasal erroneous. The first respondent further found that the first respondent-Board has ample powers to bifurcate these two wakfs. 4. The first respondent-Wakf Board, by its order dated 22.6.1986, found that the Iddgah wakf belongs to the Iddgah Committee and not to the Khader Pallivasal and that notification issued in 1959 clubbing the Iddgah Gori Thope and Khader Pallivasal erroneous. The first respondent further found that the first respondent-Board has ample powers to bifurcate these two wakfs. Consequently the first respondent by the said dated 22.6.1986 directed bifurcation of the Iddgah Gori Thope and its properties Khader Pallivasal and appointed the petitioners in W.ANo.8 of 1985 as members of the mmittee to look after the affairs of the Iddgah Gori Thope. The said order of the first respondent dated 22.6.1986 passed in W.A.No.8 of 1985 is challenged in this writ petition. 5. The pro forma report issued by the first respondent with regard to the Iddgah and Khader Pallivasal Wakf on the basis of the register of Wakfs maintained under Sec.26 of the Wakf Act, 1954, hereinafter called the Act, give the following particulars with regard to Iddgah Khader Pallivasal Wakf. In the said pro forma report the name of the Wakf is given Iddgah Khader Pallivasal, Ramanathapuram. The object of the wakf and the conditions grant are stated as follows: "The wakf was created by the Muslim of Khader Palli Street, Ramanathapuram maintaining a mosque in Khader Palli Street and conducting prayers in it and for maintaining the Idgah tope and putting up pandals for conducting the two Idd prayers." The particulars of the wakf are given as follows: In the list of wakfs existing in Ramanathapuram District published in the notification in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 22.4.1959 the name of the wakf in question is Iddgah and Khader Pallivasal Ramanathapuram and the nature and object of the given as religious and charitable to maintain a mosque and Iddgah. Further, in O.S.No.17 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Ramanathapuram between same parties the first respondent has taken the stand that the Iddgah Khader Pallivasal constitute a single wakf and the wakf and its properties viz., the mosque and the Idgah are managed by the same Managing Committee. 6. Further, in O.S.No.17 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Ramanathapuram between same parties the first respondent has taken the stand that the Iddgah Khader Pallivasal constitute a single wakf and the wakf and its properties viz., the mosque and the Idgah are managed by the same Managing Committee. 6. The case of the respondents 2 and 3 herein is that in the notification issued in the George Gazette, dated 22.4.1959 there was an erroneous clubbing of Iddgah Gori Thope Khader Pallivasal; that Iddgah and Khader Pallivasal are two distinct wakfs; that they entitled to have the Iddgah and its properties bifurcated from Khader Pallivasal and first respondent-Board has the power to bifurcate the single wakf of Iddgah and Pallivasal into two wakfs viz., Iddgah Gori Thope Wakf and Khader Pallivasal Wakf. other hand, it is contended by Mr.Abdul Kalam, learned counsel for the petitioner that notification published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 22.4.1959 issued under of the Act, the wakf is shown as Iddgah and Khader Pallivasal and by virtue of Sec.6(4) of the Act, published under Sec.5(2) of the Act has become final and conclusive. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent-Board is not vested any power under the provisions of the Act to bifurcate a single wakf notified under Sec.5(2) of the Act into two. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that assuming that the first respondent-Board has the power to direct bifurcation of the wakf into two, the reason given by the first respondent in the impugned order for directing bifurcation of the Iddgah and Khader Pallivasal into Iddgah Gori Thope Wakf and Khader Pallivasal Wakf is erroneous. In view of the case put forth by the parties, the two questions which arise for consideration in this writ petition are: (1) Whether the first respondent-Board has the power to bifurcate a single wakf notified under Sec.5(2) of the Act into two? (2) Whether the reason given by the first respondent for directing bifurcation of the Iddgah and Khader Pallivasal Wakfs into two as Iddgah Gori Thope Wakf and Khader Pallivasal Wakf is correct? 7. Let me first examine the question whether the first respondent-Board has the power bifurcate a single wakf notified under Sec.5(2) of the Act into two. (2) Whether the reason given by the first respondent for directing bifurcation of the Iddgah and Khader Pallivasal Wakfs into two as Iddgah Gori Thope Wakf and Khader Pallivasal Wakf is correct? 7. Let me first examine the question whether the first respondent-Board has the power bifurcate a single wakf notified under Sec.5(2) of the Act into two. As pointed out by court in Dr.Mohamed Hasim v. Tamil nadu State Wakf Board, (1980)1 M.L.J. 235, Board has no inherent power and if it seeks to exercise any power it must be in a position lay its hands to some specific provision in the Act, and the Wakf Board being a creation the Wakf Act the powers and jurisdiction of the Wakf Board are restricted to those that found in the Act. In Khadar Shariff v. Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board, (1987)1 M.L.J. 159 , Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the decision reported in Dr.Mohamed Hasim Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board, (1980)1 M.L.J. 235, has observed as follows: “Under the terms of Sec.15, it shall be the duty of the Board so to exercise its powers under the Act as to ensure that the Wakf under its superintendence are properly maintained, controlled and administered, etc. The language of the section is very clear that the Board should exercise only such powers as are conferred under the Act.” Mr.K.N.Basha, learned counsel for the first, respondent and Mr.P.M.Jumma Khan, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, would submit that the first respondent-Board has power or authority to bifurcate a single wakf into two or more by virtue of the provisions Secs.l5(1), 15(2)(h), 15(2)(o) and 28 of the Act. The relevant portions of Secs.15(1) and (2) of the Act run as follows: “Functions of the Board: (1) Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, general superintendence of all Wakfs in a State shall vest in the Board established for State, and it shall be the duty of the Board so to exercise its powers under this Act as ensure that the Wakfs under its superintendence are properly maintained, controlled and administered and the income there of is duly applied to the objects and for the purpose which such Wakfs were created or intended: Provided that in exercising its powers under Act in respect of any Wakf, the Board shall act in conformity with the directions of the Wakf, the purposes of the wakf sanctioned by the Muslim law. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the functions of the Board shall be-- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (n) to investigate and determine the nature and extent of Wakfs and Wakf property; and cause, wherever necessary, a survey of the Wakf properties; (o) generally do all such acts as may be necessary for the due control, maintenance and administration of Wakfs.” Under Sec.15(1) of the Act, the Wakf Board has general powers of superintendence control of all the wakfs in the State subject to the direction of the Wakf its purpose usage or custom of the wakf sanctioned by the Muslim law. Sec.15(2)(n) of the Act that one of the functions of the Board shall be to investigate and determine the nature extent of wakfs and the wakf property and to cause whenever necessary a survey wakf properties. Sec.l5(2)(o) of the Act is a residuary clause conferring power on the Wakf Board to do all such acts as may be incidentally necessary for the purpose ensuring that the wakfs are properly controlled, maintained and administered. A careful examination of Secs.15(1), 15(2)(n) and 15(2)(o) of the Act shows that the said provisions do not give any power to the Wakf Board to bifurcate an existing wakf into two or more. Sec.28 must be read along with Secs.25, 26 and 27 of the Act. All these sections come under Chapter IV of the Act which deals with registration of wakfs. Sec.25 says that every wakf whether created before or after commencement of the Act shall be registered at the office of the Board. Sec.28 must be read along with Secs.25, 26 and 27 of the Act. All these sections come under Chapter IV of the Act which deals with registration of wakfs. Sec.25 says that every wakf whether created before or after commencement of the Act shall be registered at the office of the Board. Sec.26 prescribes that the Board shall maintain a register of wakfs which shall contain in respect of each wakf copies of the wakf deeds when available and certain other particulars mentioned in that section. According to Sec.27, the Board may itself collect information regarding any property which it has reason to believe to be wakf property and any question arises whether a particular property is wakf property or not - - it may, after making such enquiry, decide the question. Sec.28 deals with the power of the Board cause registration of the wakf and to amend register and it reads as follows: “The Board may direct a mutawalli to apply for the registration of a Wakf or to supply any information regarding a Wakf or may itself cause the Wakf to be registered or may at any time amend the register of Wakfs.” A combined reading of Secs.27 and 28 goes to show that when the Wakf Board decides question whether a particular property is a wakf property or not, then the Board for purpose of implementing the decision rendered under Sec.27 of the Act may cause the Board to be registered or may at any time amend the Register of Wakfs. Sec.38 does confer any power or authority on the Wakf Board to bifurcate an existing single wakf notified under Sec.5(2) of the Act into two or more. Under these circumstances, there substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the provisions Secs.l5(1), 15(2)(n) and (o) and 28 of the Act confer power to give power or authority to first respondent -Board to bifurcate a single wakf into two or more. Consequently it has be held that the provisions of Act do not empower the first respondent in this case bifurcate the Iddgah and Khader Pallivasal Wakf into Iddgah Gori Thope Wakf and Khader Pallivasal Wakf. 8. Consequently it has be held that the provisions of Act do not empower the first respondent in this case bifurcate the Iddgah and Khader Pallivasal Wakf into Iddgah Gori Thope Wakf and Khader Pallivasal Wakf. 8. Mr.Abdul Kalam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even assuming that first respondent-Wakf Board has the power to bifurcate a single wakf into two or more, reason given by the first respondent for ordering bifurcation of the Iddgah Khader Pallivasal Wakf into Iddgah Gori Thope and Khader Pallivasal Wakf is erroneous. The only reason in the impugned order of directing bifurcation of the existing wakf into two runs as follows: “ As the very patta indicates that Iddgah Wakf is the property of a committee of trustees not that of Khader Pallivasal, we have no hesitation in holding that the Iddgah wakf belongs to the Iddgah committee and not to the Khader Pallivasal. we further hold that notification issued in 1959 clubbing Iddgah Gori Thope and Khader Pallivasal is erroneous the light of the facts that emerged at the enquiry. ” The case of the petitioner with regard to patta in respect of the Iddgah Thope, as stated para 5 (h) of the affidavit is, that the wakf and its properties including the Iddgah Thope S.No.302, Rajasso-riamadai group, Ramanathapuram Taluk bearing patta No.30 measuring 3.44 acres was in possession and enjoyment of the Dakni Jamath for about century and in 1960 the Sub-Collector, Ramanathapuram passed an order in his proceedings K.Dis. 13589/89 stating that the patta in respect of the Iddgah should be given in favour Dakni Jamath. On 19.4.1974, the Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram directed the karnam of Village to implement the order of the Sub-Collector and on 23.4.1974 the karnam implemented the order of Sub-Collector. Subsequently the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram set aside the Tahsildar’s direction dated 19.4.1974 and pursu- District Revenue Officer’s order the Tahsildar also directed the karnam by his order 28.6.1985 to effect the change in the patta. Subsequently the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram set aside the Tahsildar’s direction dated 19.4.1974 and pursu- District Revenue Officer’s order the Tahsildar also directed the karnam by his order 28.6.1985 to effect the change in the patta. In these circumstances, on behalf of the Jamath the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram against the Tahsildar’s order directing the karnam to effect change in the patta and the appeal was rejected, the petitioner preferred a second appeal to the District Revenue Officer, Ramanatha-puram and obtained an interim order dated 4.6.1986 from the District Revenue Officer directing the Revenue officials not to make any correction in the patta register pending disposal of the appeal before the District Revenue Officer. The above averments contained in para 5(h) of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition have not denied by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. The averments in para 5(h) of affidavit go to show that the patta proceedings with regard to Iddgah Gori Thope have become final and the order granting patta in favour of the committee of trustees has stayed by the District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram and the appeal filed before also pending. In these circumstances, the first respondent-Board is not justified in holding that the Iddgah belongs to the Iddgah Committee and not to the Khader Pallivasal. Consequently the order of the first respondent-Board directing the bifurcation of the Iddgah Gori Thope and its properties from Khader Pallivasal is clearly erroneous. Therefore, order of the first respondent Board dated 22.6.1986 challenged in this writ petition is to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the first respondent dated 22.6.1986 passed in W.A.No.8 of 1985 is set aside. No costs. Petition allowed.