ORDER ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.- HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. 2. LEAVE GRANTED. 3. A BRIEF REFERENCE TO THE FACTUAL ASPECTS INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS NECESSARY. THE PROPERTY WHICH ORIGINALLY BELONGED TO THE GRANDFATHER OF THE APPELLANT WAS DECLARED AS WAKF PROPERTY, ON THE BASIS OF GIFT DEED EXECUTED BY THE GRANDFATHER OF THE APPELLANT. SUBSEQUENTLY THE WAKF BOARD ADOPTED A RESOLUTION TO PART WITH PORTION OF THE PROPERTY MEASURING I ACRE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THE SAID ACTION WAS CHALLENGED BY THE COURT MOHALLA MOSQUE COMMITTEE. THE COMMITTEE INTER ALIA TOOK THE STAND THAT REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 51 OF THE KARNATAKA WAKF ACT, 1991 (IN SHORT "THE ACT") WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH. THE SAID STAND WAS ACCEPTED AND THE SETTLEMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT WAS SET ASIDE BY ORDER DATED 29-10-1998 PASSED BY THE STATE WAKF BOARD. LEGALITY OF THE SAME WAS QUESTIONED BEFORE THE KARNATAKA HIGH A COURT. A LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE HELD THAT THERE WAS NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 51 OF THE ACT. BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT A DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE PROCEDURE INDICATED FOR PARTING WITH THE PROPERTY OF THE WAKF BOARD WAS NOT FOLLOWED. ACCORDINGLY THE WRIT APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A B SPECIFIC RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE WAKF BOARD WHERE THE COMMITTEE WHICH HAS RAISED OBJECTION SUBSEQUENTLY HAD PARTICIPATED AND ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAD GIVEN CONSENT TO AN AREA OF ONE ACRE BEING ALLOTTED TO THE PRESENT APPELLANT. THE REMAINING TWO ACRES OF LAND WAS DIRECTED TO BE RESTORED TO THE COURT MOHALLA MOSQUE. AFTER HAVING GIVEN CONSENT, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE SUBSEQUENT COMMITTEE TO TAKE A DIFFERENT STAND AND QUESTION THE CORRECTNESS OF THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE WAKF BOARD. 5. IN RESPONSE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE MOSQUE COMMITTEE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS A RESOLUTION IN THE MANNER SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT, THAT WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE. HAD THE PUBLICATION BEEN MADE IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, OBJECTIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN FILED WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED. 6. WE FIND THAT SECTION 51 OF THE ACT STIPULATES THAT ELIMINATION OF WAKF PROPERTY WITHOUT SANCTION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE VOID. THE SAID PROVISION SO FAR AS RELEVANT READS AS FOLLOWS: "51. HAD THE PUBLICATION BEEN MADE IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, OBJECTIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN FILED WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED. 6. WE FIND THAT SECTION 51 OF THE ACT STIPULATES THAT ELIMINATION OF WAKF PROPERTY WITHOUT SANCTION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE VOID. THE SAID PROVISION SO FAR AS RELEVANT READS AS FOLLOWS: "51. ALIENATION OF WAKF PROPERTY WITHOUT SANCTION OF BOARD TO BE VOID.(1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE WAKF DEED, ANY GIFT, SALE, OR E 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 MUTAWALLI CONCERNED 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 WAKFS; (II) CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECT OF THE WAKFS; (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." 7. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE AS MANDATED BY SUB-SECTION (2) DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN DONE. THERE IS A PURPOSE FOR SUCH PUBLICATION. THE PURPOSE IS TO INVITE OBJECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO TRANSACTIONS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1). EVEN IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SUB-SECTION (1) WAS COMPLIED WITH AS CONTENDED IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUB-SECTION (2), THERE WAS NO VALID SANCTION BY THE BOARD. 8. THAT BEING THE POSITION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND THE DIVISION BENCH. IT WOULD BE PROPER FOR THE WAKF BOARD TO PROCEED FROM THE STAGE OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 51 AND TO TAKE NECESSARY FOLLOW-UP ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 8. THAT BEING THE POSITION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND THE DIVISION BENCH. IT WOULD BE PROPER FOR THE WAKF BOARD TO PROCEED FROM THE STAGE OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 51 AND TO TAKE NECESSARY FOLLOW-UP ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE APPELLANT TO MOVE THE WAKF BOARD TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO REGARDING PROPERTY IN QUESTION. THE MOTION IN THIS REGARD WILL BE MADE WITHIN THREE WEEKS. FOR THE SAID PERIOD OF THREE WEEKS, THE STATUS QUO AS OBTAINING TODAY SHALL BE MAINTAINED. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE HAVE NOT EXPRESSED ANY OPINION ON THE MERITS BY GIVING THIS INTERIM PROTECTION. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED.