ORDER Harinath Tilhari, J.—Sri Y. Laxmikanta Reddy and the other Counsel assisted by Sri Malathi Reddy, learned Counsels for the Petitioner and Sri Pannindra for Sri D.L.N. Rao, Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 and none appears on behalf of Respondent No. 4. By this petition Petitioner has prayed for the quashing of Order No. KTW/MSC/5/BLY 97-98 dated 29th October, 1998, passed by 1st Respondent, i.e. Karnataka State Board of Wakfs, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-G to the Writ Petition and has sought for further reliefs which this Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. The facts of the case in the nutshell are; that: The Petitioner, which claims to be the Committee, known by name Court Mohalla Mosque Committee, incharge of the administration of Wakf property. According to its case, the property in dispute, namely, Sy. No. 450 measuring 3 Acres of land situate in Bellary, is the wakf property and has been so, declared by the Mysore State Board or Wakf by Gazette Notification No. MWB 19(5) dated 17.10.1964, in exercise of powers under Section 5(2) of the Wakf Act. According to Petitioner's case, certain unscrupulous persons encroached the said land in an unauthorised manner and the Petitioner along with members of the Court Mohalla Mosque Committee, made representations for eviction of one Khasim Sab, who was making illegal constructions on the Wakf property, this Khasim Saheb is none else than Respondent No. 4, in the writ petition. According to Petitioner's case, representations were made to Respondents 1 to 3, to take action to evict the unauthorised occupants. Petitioner's grievance, is that inspite of representations made to the Respondents 1 to 3, no action was taken by the Respondents to evict the unauthorised persons, instead by order dated 29.10.1998, out of the total area of the Wakf property, namely Sy. No. 450 (which measures 3 acres of land), one acre land situate in Ward No. XV, Block 16, Bellary Town, was allotted in favour of the 4th Respondent, against and sacrificing the interest of the Wakf itself. According to Petitioner's case, that the order dated 29.10.1998, was without jurisdiction as well as, it had been made in breach of the requirements of law under Section 51 of the Karnataka State Wakf Act, 1995. 3. According to Petitioner's case, that the order dated 29.10.1998, was without jurisdiction as well as, it had been made in breach of the requirements of law under Section 51 of the Karnataka State Wakf Act, 1995. 3. Feeling aggrieved, from that order, the Petitioner has come up before this Court, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. On notices being issued, the Respondent No. 4, filed the statement of objection supported by affidavit dated 24.11.1999. That the stand taken by Respondent No. 4, in his statement of objection and the affidavit is to the effect, that, Petitioner's writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 5. According to the allegations in Paragraph-3, the land in dispute which measured 3 acres in Sy. No. 450, was no doubt, the one which has been notified to be the wakf property, but the major portion thereof, had been illegally occupied by slum dwellers in an unauthorised manner and the institution of wakf was not getting any income out of said land. It was tried to be asserted, that said land was owned by the grand father of Respondent No. 4, without there being any donation of the said land to the Wakf Institution. The Respondent further asserted, that in the circumstances, the Petitioner-committee and the Administrator of District Wakf Committee placed the matter before the Board for amicable settlement, and thereafter, on the basis of the resolution, Board issued impugned order of allotment of the land in favour of the Respondent No. 4 now and so, there is no ground to quash the same. 6. The Respondent No. 4, states that, Petitioner's Committee entered interminable settlement only to save the property from illegal occupations by slum dwellers and from unauthorised constructions, and that in the meeting, the members of Petitioner's Committee also participated, so they, are not entitled to file the writ petition. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, but no doubt, appearance has been put on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, by their learned Counsel. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, but no doubt, appearance has been put on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, by their learned Counsel. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The Petitioner's Counsel, submitted that under Section 51, firstly, the Wakf property ordinarily, cannot be transferred by way of sale, mortgage, exchange etc., and any transfer made by way of sale, mortgage, exchange or gift is void, unless and until the said transfer has been shown to have been made after obtaining the necessary sanction of the Board. Learned Counsel further contended that in the present case, the alleged sanction has not been granted after having followed the necessary procedure or requirement of law nor the alleged donation, the transfer in question has been made in accordance with the requirements of Section 51(2) of the Act. Further the learned Counsel contended that, under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, the procedure has been provided for eviction of unauthorised occupants and for removal of encroachments made on the Wakf property, and Section 55, provides for enforcement of the orders passed under Section 54. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended, that inspite of representations and complaints being made about unauthorised occupation or encroachments made over Wakf property by unauthorised occupants, the Respondents 1 to 3, did not take necessary action and they failed to perform the duty cast thereon. Petitioner's Counsel further, contended that as, requirements of Section 51(2), were not followed, the sanction granted is illegal, as, it is well settled principle of law, that where, a power is given to an authority or person to pass certain orders or to do certain thing and the law prescribes the mode for exercise of that power, then, that power, has got to be exercised by necessary implications in that mode and manner, as has been, prescribed by the provisions conferring the power, and not otherwise. The learned Counsel contended, as the necessary, conditions and requirements of Section 51(2) have not been followed, the order sanctioning transfer of land or order making allotment of the land in dispute in favour of Respondent No. 4, is illegal, null and void and needs to be quashed. The learned Counsel contended, as the necessary, conditions and requirements of Section 51(2) have not been followed, the order sanctioning transfer of land or order making allotment of the land in dispute in favour of Respondent No. 4, is illegal, null and void and needs to be quashed. Learned Counsel further submitted that, as the Respondents No. 1 to 3, have failed to perform the obligations and the duties under Section 54, of the Wakf Act, direction may be issued to Respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary action to remove encroachments as well as to evict the unscrupulous unauthorised occupants of the Wakf property. On behalf of the Respondents, it has only has been submitted, that, Petitioner-committee was also a party in the meeting, where the said decision was, taken to allot the land and to settle the matter with 4th Respondent and this action was taken only on the representation, no doubt, made by the Petitioner's Committee. Learned Counsel for the Respondents could not dare to challenge the contentions of Petitioner's Counsel, that, the property is the Wakf property, even a perusal of the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 4, clearly reveals that the property in dispute, has been wakf property and once it has been or was a wakf property, the property could not be transferred by way of gift, sale, exchange or mortgage to any person neither by Petitioner's committee nor by any one else until and unless the permission to transfer the said property is granted by the Wakf Board. 8. Before I proceed further, I think it would be appropriate to quote Section 51 of the Karnataka Wakf Act, 1991, it reads as under: 51. Alienation of Wakf Property without sanction of Board to be void.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the wakf deed, any gift, sale, or exchange, mortgage of Immovable property which is wakf property, shall be void unless such gift, sale, exchange, or mortgage is effected with the prior sanction of the Board: Provided that no mosque, dargah or khankah shall be gifted, sold, exchanged, or mortgaged except in accordance with any law for the time being in force. (2) The Board may, after publishing in the Official Gazette, the particulars relating to the transaction referred to in Sub-section (1) and inviting any objections and suggestions with respect thereto and considering all objections and suggestions, if any, that may be received by it from the concerned mutawalli or any other person interested in the wakf, accord sanction to such transaction if it is of opinion that such transaction is. i) necessary or beneficial to the wakf; ii) consistent with the objects of the wakf; iii) the consideration thereof is reasonable and adequate: Provided that the sale of any property sanctioned by the Board shall be effected by public auction and shall be subject to confirmation by the Board within such time as may be prescribed: Provided further that the Tribunal may, on the application of the aggrieved mutawalli or other person, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, permit such sale to be made otherwise than public auction, if it is of opinion that is necessary so to do in the interest of the wakf. (3) The utilisation or investment of the amount realised by the sale or exchange, mortgage of any property shall be made by the mutalli subject to the approval of the Board, and where any amount has been raised by mortgage of any such property, the mutawalli or any person shall make repayment of the mortgaged- debt from the mortgagee within a reasonable time as the Board may specify. (4) Every approval given by the Board under Sub-section (3) shall be communicated to the mutawalli and shall also be published in the manner prescribed. (5) The mutawalli or any other person having an interest in the wakf who is aggrieved by the decision given under Sub-section (3), may within ninety days from the date of communication to him of such decision, or the publication of the decision, as the case may be, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal against such decision, and thereupon, the Tribunal, may after giving the appellant and the Board, a reasonable opportunity of being heard, confirm, modify, or set aside such decision. That Section 51 of the Wakf Act reveals, as when, and subject to what conditions alienation of Wakf property can be made and in what manner and mode it can be made. That Section 51 of the Wakf Act reveals, as when, and subject to what conditions alienation of Wakf property can be made and in what manner and mode it can be made. That Sub-section (1) of Section 51, in clear terms provides, that no transfer either by sale, gift, exchange of mortgage of immovable wakf property shall be made except with the prior sanction of the Board of Wakf. Sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Act, provides the condition and circumstance subject to consideration and existence of which the sanction will be granted and what procedure is to be followed in the matter of grant of sanction by the board. That Sub-section (2) of Section 51 provided, that the Board has firstly to notify by publication of notification in the official gazette of the particulars of the transaction, as referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 51, as well as by that notification invite the objections and suggestions with respect to that and thereafter whatever objections or suggestions are, received by it from Mutawallis of concerned Wakf or from persons interested in Wakf concerned, the Board shall consider those objections etc., and then it has, to form its opinion, with regard to matters as under: (a) Whether it (transaction) is necessary and beneficial to the Wakf. (b) Whether the transaction in question is consistent with the objects of the Wakf and, (c) Whether the 'consideration' for the transaction is reasonable and adequate. It further provides, that Board shall pass a reasoned order on above points of consideration and the applications, i.e., objection filed by Mutawalli of the Wakf or other interested person, and on being satisfied, as to above points or matters in affirmative Board may grant sanction. The provisos to Section 51(2) of the Act, provides that sale of property of Wakf shall be made ordinarily by public auction and the same shall be subject to confirmation of Wakf. 9. The first proviso to Section 51(2), very clearly provides that sale of any property sanctioned by the Board shall ordinarily take place and be held only by public auction and not by way of private arrangement and that auction bids made, will be subject to confirmation by the Board. 9. The first proviso to Section 51(2), very clearly provides that sale of any property sanctioned by the Board shall ordinarily take place and be held only by public auction and not by way of private arrangement and that auction bids made, will be subject to confirmation by the Board. No doubt, second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 51, provides that if any Mutwalli or any person is, aggrieved then the Tribunal on the application by the aggrieved Mutawalli or person for reasons to be recorded in writing, permit the sale to be held otherwise than by public auction, provided the sale otherwise than public auction is necessary in the interest of Wakf. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court by the Respondents including Respondents 1, 2 and 3, to establish or show that any publication of transaction and particulars in notification in official gazette, as required by Sub-section (2), inviting the objections, the proposal for sale or allotment of the land in favour of Respondent No. 2, has been made. That nothing has been placed on records nor before us in course of hearing, to show the transaction and its particulars have been made or done, as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 51 or that objections to the transaction had been called for. That, as per mandate of Section 51(2) proviso ordinarily, the sale of Immovable wakf property evenafter, even after, obtaining sanction for selling it the sale has to take place not by private settlement of sale or private sale, but by public auction, with exception to the cases where Tribunal constituted under the Act, permits the sale by private transaction. That the sale in the present case, has not been held by public auction. 10. In the present case, the transfer is being done by private settlement but there is nothing on record, to prove that sanction was, accorded by the Board after due compliance of the requirements of Section 51 of the Wakf Act nor it has been alleged or stated by Respondents 1 to 3, nor even by Respondent No. 4 in his affidavit, that the allotment, had been made in favour of Respondent No. 4, after the property having been put to public auction. It is no body's case, that special permission/permission had been obtained for sale of the Wakf property, by private sale or sale by private settlement, i.e., otherwise than, by public auction. 11. It is well settled principle of law, that when the letters of law, are clear and unambiguous they have to be given effect. Further, it is also the well settled principle of law that if as, laid down by the Privy Council and the Supreme Court that when power, is conferred to do certain thing and power is required to be exercised in the manner and mode specified by law which conferred, that power, by necessary implication the exercise of that power otherwise than the mode specified is prohibited and barred (See Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 ), where their Lordships observed: The rule which applies is a different and not less well recognised rule, namely, that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. 12. In this view of the matter, in my opinion the order impugned making allotment of the property in dispute or even part thereof, in favour of any person, such as, Respondent No. 4 is without jurisdiction and is illegal, null and void and inoperative to transfer any title or interest in the Wakf Property in favour of Respondent No. 4. As Respondent No. 4, has been a trespasser or a person in unauthorised occupation and is a person in unauthorised occupation who has committed encroachment of the Wakf property, the mandate of the law to the authorities under Section 54 of the Wakf Act, is to take action to remove the encroachment and to evict the trespassers therefrom. Respondents No. 1 to 3, have failed to perform their obligations and to discharge duties, inspite of Petitioners filing representations, as such in my opinion, the Petitioner has made out a case for issuance of direction in the nature of writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing Respondents 1 to 3, to comply with the requirements of law under Section 54 and to take action to evict the unauthorised occupants and to remove the encroachments made on the Wakf Property. Thus considered, the Writ Petition is hereby allowed. Thus considered, the Writ Petition is hereby allowed. The order impugned, namely, Annexure-G, dated 29.10.1999, is held to be illegal, null and void abinitio and it is hereby set aside and quashed. 13. The writ of mandamus is hereby issued in above terms directing Respondents 1 to 3, to perform its obligations and to take action in accordance with the Section 54 of the Wakf Act, to acquire possession of the property in dispute from unauthorised occupants by evicting them as well as by removing the encroachment thereon. 14. The parties to the Writ Petition have to bear their respective costs.