Judgment :- 1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Wakf Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Madurai dated 16. 2006 passed in W.A. No. I of 2005. .2. The respondents 2 to 17 herein have filed a Petition before the first respondent-Tamil Nadu Wakf Board praying to frame a scheme for the proper administration of Kazirnar Periai Pallivasal Wakf under Section 32(c) and Section 32(d) of the Wakf Act, 1995. Pursuant to the same, the Wakf Board sent a notice to the trustees on 19. 2002, enclosing the copy of the Petition filed by the respondents 2 to 17 and asked the trustees to furnish a scheme for administration of the said Pallivasal. The Trustees have opposed the said Petition contending that the management and administration of the said mosque is hereditary, carried on from time immemorial by haqdars/descendants of Kaji Tajudeen and hence the question of framing a scheme for administration of the said Mosque does not arise. However, the first respondent-Wakf Board, by its order dated 8. 2004 directed the trustees as well as the respondents to file a draft scheme for consideration of the Board. In the same order, it has been observed that regarding the issue of female member claiming the right of management, since the law does not prohibit women from holding the office of a Muthawalli, when the scheme is framed, the rights of all persons irrespective of gender can be taken into consideration at that point of time. Questioning the said order passed by the first respondent-Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, the petitioners herein being the trustees of said Pallivasal has filed W.A. No.1 of 2006 before the Wakf Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Madurai. By an order dated 16. 2006, the learned Wakf Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge) Madurai has confirmed the order passed by the Wakf Board. That order is under challenge by the petitioners herein, who were the appellants before the Wakf Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge) Madurai. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the Kazimar Periya Pallivasal is a sunni wakf. It has been in existence from the time of Pandian Kings. Properties have been dedicated to the said Pallivasal by Panidan kings and Nawabs. 14 persons have been named as beneficiaries. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the Kazimar Periya Pallivasal is a sunni wakf. It has been in existence from the time of Pandian Kings. Properties have been dedicated to the said Pallivasal by Panidan kings and Nawabs. 14 persons have been named as beneficiaries. The rule of succession to the office of Muttavallis is stated to be hereditary and now the Mosque is managed by a committee of 14 members and among whom there is a managing trustee. The allegation of maladministration and the request for framing a scheme including non-haqdars is totally unsustainable and against the will of the Wakf, was the main substance of the argument of the petitioners herein before the Wakf Board and the Tribunal referred to above. .4. Per contra, the respondents2 to 17 herein have pleaded before the Wakf Board and before the Wakf Tribunal that there is a total mismanagement of the wakf and income is usurped and shared by the Haqdars who are close relatives. The income is never utilised for charitable purposes and there are several allegations of misappropriation. The Haqdars have separated themselves from the trust and formed "Hazarath Kazi Tajudeen Society" which is obviously illegal. It has been further stated that the properties are only for the maintenance of an existing Mosque and for other charitable purposes. The Kazimar Big Mosque has been established by all the Muslims of the locality in a Government site which was not a private property. The present Haqdars belong to a family for whom religion is not a matter of faith alone, but profession and a commodity of business. Generation after generation, most of them depend for their livelihood by working as "Kaziz", "Pesh Imam" and by reciting "Fathihas", Moulds", etc. Hence, they prayed the Board for framing a scheme for administration of Kazimar Periai Pallivasal Wakf. 5. Ms. Nazeen, Principal, Government Arts College for Women, Ramanathapuram in a representation dated 1. 2003 stated that Khazimar Street is one of the oldest in Madurai. Khazimar Peria Pallivasal is also situated in Khzimar Street and is quite near to the Central Bus Stand and Railway Station. 5. Ms. Nazeen, Principal, Government Arts College for Women, Ramanathapuram in a representation dated 1. 2003 stated that Khazimar Street is one of the oldest in Madurai. Khazimar Peria Pallivasal is also situated in Khzimar Street and is quite near to the Central Bus Stand and Railway Station. She has requested the Board to include the Mohalia people in the administration of the Khazimar Street Mosque and take concerted efforts to bring an awareness among the Khazimar people, as well as among the women folk so that they may breathe the fresh air of freedom and emancipation. Further, it has been represented that efforts should be taken to give every female Muslim living in Khazimar Street equal rights in all spheres of life. Further, the Mosque cannot he a private property and it is a public Wakf where every Muslim of the locality has got a right to participate in the management of the Wakf. 6. After considering the claim and the objections made in this regard, the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, the first respondent herein, has framed the following issues: .(1) Whether it is necessary to frame a scheme for the proper administration of Khazimar Peria Pallivasal under the provisions of Wakf Act, 1995? .(2) Whether the respondents claim to be in management is justified in law? .(3) Whether the claim of respondents as Mujawars and Huqdars should be recognized or not? .(4) Whether the petitioners claim that females should be involved in administration of the Wakf is valid? 7. On the above issues, the Board came to the conclusion that (a) The names of the beneficiaries given in the Proforma Report should be construed as persons maintaining the Mosque at that point of time and therefore claim of office cannot be restricted to the beneficiaries or to their descendants exclusively. The Board then came to the conclusion that neither the Mosque or the properties can be treated as private properties of the beneficiaries and therefore, it has held that the stand of the petitioners herein, who were respondents before the Board, cannot be sustained. .(b) It has been brought to the notice of the Board that the petitioners herein, who were the respondents before the Board, have formed a Society called Hazrath Khazi Thajuddin Society and the said society has been formed with a view to divert the income of the Khazimar Peria Pallivasal to the Society. .(b) It has been brought to the notice of the Board that the petitioners herein, who were the respondents before the Board, have formed a Society called Hazrath Khazi Thajuddin Society and the said society has been formed with a view to divert the income of the Khazimar Peria Pallivasal to the Society. The Board thus felt that the formation of the Society to divert the income of the Wakf is an outrageous act. .(c) Section 32 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter called as "the Act") defines the powers and functions of the Board. As per Section 32(2)of the said Act, the Board has got power to settle the Schemes of management for a Wakf. .(d) There is nothing to substantiate that the petitioners the descendants of the wakif. There is no evidence of there being a Wakif or a Wakf Name to decide the line of succession. They are not the direct descendants of Wakif. They do not enjoy undisturbed lineage in sucession. As there has been serious allegation, it would be appropriate that a scheme should be formulated for effectively administering the Wakf. Since the Board has received representation from several members of the Jamath, there has been a deep seated discord and animosity between the resident of the Mohalla and the Huqdar over the years, framing of a scheme is absolutely necessary. Thus after taking into consideration the entire aspects of the matter, the Board felt that it is desirable to frame scheme for proper administration of the wakf. With that view in mind, the Board directed all the parties concerned to file a draft scheme for consideration of the Board for its approval. .(e) Further, the Board has held that regarding the issue of female members claiming the right of management, since the law does not prohibit women from holding the office of a Muthawalli, a scheme can be formulated and rights of persons irrespective of gender can be taken into consideration at that point of time. 8. Challenging the said order passed by the Board, the petitioners herein, who are the Trustees of Kazimark Periya Pallivasal, have preferred W.A. No.1 of 2005 before the Wakf Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Madurai. 8. Challenging the said order passed by the Board, the petitioners herein, who are the Trustees of Kazimark Periya Pallivasal, have preferred W.A. No.1 of 2005 before the Wakf Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Madurai. The Wakf Tribunal has considered the entire arguments that have been advanced on the side of the petitioners as well as the respondents and came to the conclusion that: .(a) Filing of the Appeal by the petitioners before the Wakf Tribunal against the orders passed by the Wakf Board is perfectly maintainable. Such a finding is necessitated by the Tribunal in view of the fact that the respondents have taken the plea that the Wakf Tribunal has no power to decide the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Wakf Board. .(b) The petitioners cannot say that no scheme can be framed by the Board for managing Kazimar Periya Pallivasal. A prima facie case has been made out by the respondents 2 to 17 and also others for framing a scheme for proper management of the said Pallivasal. .(c) For the past two years, the Board has conducted several enquiries and after affording opportunity to all the concerned persons, the Board has passed the final order. Hence, it cannot be urged on behalf of the petitioners that no fair opportunities have been given to the petitioners. Thus, after elaborately dealing with all the aspects of the matter, the Wakf Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Madurai has confirmed the order of the Board by its order dated 16. 2006. 9. I have heard Mr. V. Raghupathy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. K.K. Senthil, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, Mr. V. Lakshminarayanan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 17 and Mr. S. Meenakshi Sundaram, the learned counsel appearing for the impleading parties, namely, respondents 18 and 19. 10. The first and foremost point that has been urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no reasonable opportunity has been given either by the first respondent-Wakf Board or by the Wakf Tribunal which has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioners. As could be seen from the file, the matter was pending before the Wakf Board for more than two years. On several dates, the matter has been posted for hearing and the matter has been heard at length by the members of the Board. As could be seen from the file, the matter was pending before the Wakf Board for more than two years. On several dates, the matter has been posted for hearing and the matter has been heard at length by the members of the Board. Furthermore, before the Wakf Tribunal also, opportunities have been given to all the parties concerned to put forth their case. While so, the petitioners cannot now complain that no fair opportunity has been given by the Board and by the Tribunal. 11. The next submission that has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners which is being supported by the learned counsel for the respondents 18 and 19 is that a scheme cannot be framed for administering the Wakf or the properties or the Mosque, since the Wakf Board has no power to frame a scheme. Section 32(2) of the Act reads as follows: "32. powers and junctions of the Board. — (I) .(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the functions of the Board shall be- .(a) to maintain a record containing information relating to the origin, income, object and beneficiaries of very wakf; .(h) to ensure that the income and other property of wakfs are applied to the objects and for the purposes for which such wakfs were intended or created; .(c) to give directions for the administration of wakfs; .(d) to settle schemes of management for a wakf: .(i) the utilisation of the surplus income of a wakf consistent with the object of a wakf; .(ii) in any manner the income of a wakf, the objects of which are not evident from any written instrument, shall be utilized, (iii) any case where any object of wakf has ceased to exist or has become incapable of achievement, that so much of the income of the wakf as was previously applied to that object shall be applied to any other object which shall be similar, or nearly similar or to the original object or for the benefit of the poor or for the purpose of promotion of knowledge and learning in the Muslim community: Provided that no such settlement shall be made without giving the parties affected an opportunity of being heard; to direct Provided that no direction shall be given under this clause without giving the parties affected an opportunity of being heard." 12. Thus, as per Section 32 of the Act, the Board has got power to give direction for the administration of the wakf to settle scheme for management of the wakf. The only thing that has to be followed by the Board is that before such settlement shall be made, the parties affected shall be given an opportunity of being heard. In the case on hand, the Board has given sufficient opportunities to the petitioners as well as the concerned persons and has passed the order. Furthermore, it has been found by the Board that there is a mismanagement of the wakf and the property and hence, such a course has been adopted by the Board. 13. Furthermore, "Hazarath Kazi Tajudeen Society" has been formed to siphon the funds of the Mosque. Further, the Board has clearly held that the parties are inimically disposed towards each other and lot of acrimony and will. Further, it has been stated that the mind set of the parties has been demonstrated by their violent behaviour on the day of hearing. It is further stated that even during the course of hearing, the Board had to call for police help to handle a very violent situation which erupted between the parties who appeared before the Board and an environment of this kind cannot be permitted to continue. The view of the Board is that it is possible to remove the concept of negativism only when there are clearly demarcated guidelines in management of the Wakf. Towards achieving the said object, framing of a scheme to identify those who are entitled to manage and the scheme of management and the regulatory measures are the only course. 14. In view of the clear findings by the Board as well as by the Wakf Tribunal, I am constrained to hold that the order of the Wakf Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge) Madurai made in W.A. No.1 of 200 dated 16. 2006 confirming the order of the Wakf Board dated 8. 2004 cannot be said to be erroneous or suffers any infirmity. Hence, the said order is hereby confirmed and the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2006 is closed. However, there is no order as to costs.