H. V. G. RAMESH, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS have sought for quashing of the order dated 28. 1. 2003 in OS 25/2003 and OS 26/2002 at annexures H and J and to issue appropriate writ Petitioners are said to be owners in possession of property in Sy. No. 23/1 measuring about 5. 09 acres and Sy. No. 23/2 measuring about 5. 07 acres situate at Shiroor Village, Gulbarga. According to the petitioners, they have filed a suit in OS 312/2001 which was subsequently renumbered as OS 25/2003 and similarly OS 314/2001 was renumbered as OS 26/2002 seeking for a declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction against the respondents viz. , Wakf Board and other persons. It is their case mat one Mahalappa was the grandfather of the 1st petitioner who had three sons by name Khandappa, Danappa and Ladappa. The property in question is an ancestral property which was registered in the name of Mahalappa in the record of rights in the year 1932 and alter his death, the name of Khandappa was entered as he being the eldest member of the family and there was a family partition in the year 1964 between the three sons. The suit land was allotted to the share of the father of the 1st petitioner and after his death the name of the 1st petitioner came to be entered in the record of rights. Similarly, in respect of the 2nd petitioner it is stated that in the family partition in 1964, the land was allotted to the share of the father of the 2nd petitioner and after his death, name of the 2nd petitioner was entered in the record of rights. Since the names of respondents 2 to 5 are said to have been entered in the record of rights, petitioners are said to have preferred appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Gulbarga. Thereafter, respondent is said to have stopped interfering with the possession of the petitioners. It is also averred that at the instigation of respondents 2 to 5, the 1st respondent has issued a notice dated 3. 8. 2000 purporting to be under Section 54 of the Wakf Act 1995 wherein for the first time noting that there is a darga called Abdul Ali Darga in the suit property, in the gazette notification dated 29. 1. 1975 at Sl. 8. 2000 purporting to be under Section 54 of the Wakf Act 1995 wherein for the first time noting that there is a darga called Abdul Ali Darga in the suit property, in the gazette notification dated 29. 1. 1975 at Sl. No. 148, the suit property was notified as wakf property and thereafter, the petitioners were called upon to furnish explanation within eight weeks as to why they shall not be removed from the suit land. As such, the petitioners filed a suit and after service of notice on the respondents, the 1st respondent has filed written statement seeking for transfer of the case to the Wakf Tribunal. At this juncture, it has to be noted that by an order dated 6. 1. 1999, the State Government exercising power under Section 83 (i) of the Wakf Act, 1995, constituted four Wakf Tribunals in Karnataka and pursuant to the same, the High Court has issued a notification and also directed the Sessions Judges of the concerned Division to transfer all the cases pertaining to the Wakf and Wakf Property to the newly constituted Wakf Tribunal, without specifying as to which are the litigations to be transferred. ( 2 ) IT is further stated that after the constitution of the Wakf Tribunal, learned Civil Judge transferred all the cases in which the Wakf Board is made a party to the Wakf Tribunal irrespective of the subject matter of the suit As such, petitioners filed objections objecting to such transfer on the ground that petitioners are hindus and they are not claiming any right over the wakf property and the listing of their property as wakf property was without hearing the petitioners and as such, it is not binding on them. Further, the lands in dispute are the ancestral property of the petitioners' family and as such, the suit shall not be transferred. However, the prayer of the petitioners was rejected. Hence, these two petitions contending that the property does not come within the definition of Wakf Property and also that such properties are not notified by the Watt Board alter commencement of the Wakf Act, 1995 which came into force on 1. 1. 19%. ( 3 ) IN the objections tiled by the respondent, it is contended that the land in dispute is a watt property notified in the gazette notification dated 19. 1. 1975 at sl. Nos. 1. 19%. ( 3 ) IN the objections tiled by the respondent, it is contended that the land in dispute is a watt property notified in the gazette notification dated 19. 1. 1975 at sl. Nos. 143 and 145 respectively. The petitioners have filed a suit for a declaration declaring them to be the owners of the suit property in possession and hence, the suits are in respect of wakf property and Section 6 (1) of the Wakf Act, 199s provides for transfer of the suit to the Tribunal to decide any question arising as to whether a particular property specified as a wakf property in the list of watts is wakf property or not wherein the Board or the Mutawalli of the watt or any person interested therein may institute a suit in a Tribunal and 'any person interested therein' has been defined for purpose of Section 6 and 7 and mat a conjoint reading of Section 6 (5) and Section 7 (5) or the Act makes it clear that after the commencement of the Wakf Act, 1995, no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted or commenced in a court in relation to any question referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act and the Tribunal is empowered with jurisdiction in respect of a dispute after the commencement of the Act Further, the 1995 Act provides the Tribunal with jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any watt or watt property to be determined. As such, the matter has to be tried by the Tribunal and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decade tike dispute as the Wakf Act 1995 has taken away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and empowered the Tribunal to decide the disputes in respect of wakf properties. ( 4 ) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner, respondent and also the Government Advocate. ( 4 ) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner, respondent and also the Government Advocate. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petition has argued that as per the Wakf Act, 1954 and also the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1979 SC 289 , the petitioner does not come within file definition of 'any other person interested therein' and unless as per Section 6 (1) of the 1995 Act the property is notified as a wakf property, the Tribunal is not empowered to deal with the matter although there is entry of names in the revenue records by the revenue authorities on the ground that mere is encroachment by the petitioners. The names of some persons belonging to the Mohammedan religion has been entered without any notice to the petitioners and unless and until the same is notified in the subsequent list i. e. , after commencement of the 1995 Act, mat the property belongs to the wakf, the question of the Tribunal trying the matter does not arise. It is his further contention that the suits filed before the civil court are to be tried by the civil court only as, after the commencement of the 1995 Act, the properties are not further notified and there is an exemption provided as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajastan v. Radha Kishan and Ors. AIR 1979 SC 279 according to which, the question of limitation also does not arise for non-musums and the only limitation that is provided under the old Act is in respect of parties belonging to Mohammedan religion. Accordingly, he contended that the transfer of the suite filed before the civil court to the Wakf Tribunal on such notification being issued is without jurisdiction and the matter has to be remitted back from the Tribunal to the civil court for disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, he contended that the transfer of the suite filed before the civil court to the Wakf Tribunal on such notification being issued is without jurisdiction and the matter has to be remitted back from the Tribunal to the civil court for disposal in accordance with law. ( 6 ) PER contra, counsel for the respondent - Wakf Board submitted that when once the property is held as a wakf property, a person interested therein though may be a non-muslim still, the Wakf Act applies although there is no such notification being issued subsequently after the Wakf Act 1995 is indicated and the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal oust the jurisdiction of the civil court as per Section 85 of the Act and accordingly contended that mere is no illegality in transferring the case from the civil court to the Tribunal to decide the matter in accordance with law. Even the matter whether the property belongs to the petitioners who are non-muslims or the property is a wakf property or not has to be adjudicated by the Tribunal. ( 7 ) IT appears in the instant case, according to the petitioners, the property in question was being enjoyed by them from the time of their fore fathers. It appears some where during 1974 after survey being conducted, the respondent Wakf Board tried to assert their rights and also the revenue authorities made entries of the names of some persons belonging to the Mohammedan religion. According to the petitioners, those entries made in the revenue records and also the earlier notification made during 197s is without holding an enquiry as contemplated under the Act as such, being aggrieved by the same, they filed suit and by virtue of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the decision noted above, he can very well seek for a declaration and the suit is maintainable. ( 8 ) IT appears, petitioners tiled suit in the year 1986 against such notification said to have been issued during 1975. According to them, there was no notice issued as such, when the authorities proceeded to take action, they filed suit. Of course mis is a matter to be considered by the concerned court while deciding the matter as to whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. According to them, there was no notice issued as such, when the authorities proceeded to take action, they filed suit. Of course mis is a matter to be considered by the concerned court while deciding the matter as to whether the suit is barred by limitation or not. ( 9 ) IN so far as property notified as Wakf property vide gazette notification in the year 1975 under the Wakf Act, 1954 is concerned, it is to be noted that under the subsequent provision provided under the 1995 Act, in the explanation to Section 6 and Section 7, the expression 'any person interested therein' has been defined as - in relation to any property specified as wakf property in the list of wakfs published after the commencement of the 1995 Act. This is indicative of the fact that the property which has been listed as a wakf property in the 1975 gazette notification, has not been subsequently notified as wakf property alter the commencement of the 1995 Act. The explanation to Section 6 makes it clear that 'any person interested therein' shall also include every other person though not interested in the wakf concerned, is interested in such property and to whom a reasonable opportunity had been afforded to represent his case by notice served on him in that behalf during the course of relevant inquiry under Section 4. This explanation contemplates, before inclusion of any such property as wakf property under the Wakf Act, 1995, there has to be a notice issued and enquiry be held alter notice under Section 4 and thereafter, the property has to be declared as wakf property. On such publication if there is a lis or dispute then only the Wakf Tribunal would entertain the matter. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, the property was notified as wakf property in the year 1975 by a gazette notification. Though it is contended by the petitioners that such publication was without notice to them, this is a matter of enquiry and what is required to be decided by the concerned court is whether the property belongs to wakf or not and then to proceed to order. Though it is contended by the petitioners that such publication was without notice to them, this is a matter of enquiry and what is required to be decided by the concerned court is whether the property belongs to wakf or not and then to proceed to order. ( 11 ) FOR the present, what is challenged by the petitioners who are non-muslims is the gazette notification at the year 1975 by which the properties in question were listed as wakf properties and as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the decision cited supra the suit is maintainable even beyond the period of limitation and the limitation provided under the old Act is applicable to people belonging to Mohammedan Religion. However, that does not necessarily mean mat the petitioners can avail this benefit at any time to challenge the same. Might be the limitation provided under the old Act may not be applicable to the petitioner. But, the general law of limitation would apply to them in making such a challenge and unless it is shown that there is no notice and knowledge of the publication of the notification notifying the property as wakf property, the limitation under the general law would be applicable and it is for the petitioners to convince the court that there is no notice to them and the suit was tiled well within the general law of limitation. ( 12 ) HOWEVER, it is clarified that in view of the explanation provided under Section 6, the properties have not been notified after the commencement of the new Act, transferring the case pending before the Civil Court to the Wakt Tribunal may not be correct. In such circumstance, the same has to be referred back to the Civil Court. The civil court after considering the question of limitation applicable has to (sic) as to whether the property belongs to the Wakf or not, shall proceed to pass orders on the remaining issues in accordance with loss. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, petitions are allowed. Annexures H and J by which order has been passed transferring the original suits from the civil court to the Wakf Tribunal, Gulbarga are quashed and the matter is made over to the Civil Court for adjudication as indicated above, in accordance with law.