Judgment : Oral Judgment: This is a second appeal against the order of Additional District Judge who confirmed the order of Assistant Charity Commissioner framing a Scheme of the trust known as Khairullasha Darga. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed an application under Section 50-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act before the Assistant Charity Commissioner for settlement of a Scheme in respect of Khairullasha Darga Chikhli district Buldhana. Applicants contended that applicant No.1 was a Trustee of the Trust and No.2 was the person having interest in the said Trust. There were in all 9 trustees and out of them three had resigned and three trustees had died. There was a Meeting on 20.02.1999 and the vacancies were filled in. As a result the Change Report was filed which was registered as Inquiry Case No. 259 of 1999. The said Change Report was admittedly allowed. It is contended by the applicants before the Charity Commissioner that there is no Scheme for proper management of the trust and there is no proper mode of succession. They therefore prayed that a Scheme be framed. Learned Assistant Charity Commissioner framed a Scheme for the said trust and appointed 9 persons as Trustees. Being aggrieved by that order one Hanifshah filed an appeal before the District Judge Buldhana. District Judge Buldhana dismissed the appeal and confirmed the finding of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. 3. Being aggrieved by that order Hanifsha has preferred this appeal. The appeal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law: Whether the Assistant Charity Commissioner erred in entertaining an application for framing a Scheme and whether the Additional District Judge also erred in entertaining and deciding the appeal against the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner in view of the provisions of Section 32 of the Wakf Act, 1995? 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 5. Shri Khapre learned counsel for the appellant contended that the orders of both the Courts below are without jurisdiction. He submits that the Trust Khairullasha Darga besides being a Trust is a Wakf and as such now governed by the Wakf Act, 1995 which came into force from 01.01.1996. He submits that proceedings with regard to any Wakf now need to be taken up under this new Act and only before the forums provided under the Act. He submits that the Trust Khairullasha Darga besides being a Trust is a Wakf and as such now governed by the Wakf Act, 1995 which came into force from 01.01.1996. He submits that proceedings with regard to any Wakf now need to be taken up under this new Act and only before the forums provided under the Act. Application under Section 50-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act was filed by the respondents before the Charity Commissioner on 25.05.1999. Obviously the application under Bombay Public Trust Act was filed after coming into force of the Wakf Act 1995. He submits that by virtue of provisions of Section 112 of the Wakf Act, all Acts are deemed to be repealed and therefore Bombay Public Trust Act is not applicable to the Wakf. After having gone through the provisions of Section 112(3) of the Wakf Act it is clear that as far as applicability of the Bombay Public Trust Act to Wakf is concerned the said Act stands repealed. The result of such repeal is that all Wakfs are now governed by Wakf Act and whosoever wants to get his grievance redressed for or against the Wakf has to do it under the Wakf Act. Respondents therefore had no right to approach the Charity Commissioner under Section 50-A nor did the Charity Commissioner have jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 50-A. 6. There is yet another reason why Charity Commissioner could not assume jurisdiction. If the Scheme of the Wakf Act is seen it would be clear that it makes a remedy as well Forum available under the Act. The forum i.e. the Tribunal or Board can grant all those reliefs, which can be granted by the Charity Commissioner. Section 32(2)(d)(g) makes it clear that the party can approach a Board for settlement of Scheme for Wakf and it can also appoint Mutawallis i.e. Trustees. 7. Upon consideration of provisions of law as discussed above it is clear that both Courts fell in error in assuming jurisdiction in framing a Scheme of a Wakf. The orders having been passed without jurisdiction are in fact void. Yet they need to be set aside and they are set aside. Appeal is allowed. Orders passed by the Courts below are set aside. No order as to costs.