Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the Order and Decretal Order, dated 07.01.2008 made in O.A.No.5 of 2006 on the file of the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court / Wakf Tribunal, Chennai. 2. The first respondent herein had filed the Original Application under Section 83 (1) of The Wakf Act, 1995 against the revision petitioner and the second respondent herein, seeking an order to appoint a receiver to manage and administer the Madrasa-e-Islamia, Wakf, No.20, Paris Venkatachala Iyer Lane, Mahfuz Khan Garden, Chennai – 1. 3. The Wakf Tribunal, allowed the application, directing the Wakf Board, the second respondent herein to take over the management and its properties and also to dispose the application, dated 25.06.2006 filed by the first respondent / applicant before the second respondent within the specified period, after providing opportunity to the applicant. The court below has further directed the second respondent herein to conduct the election of the Wakf, within the time limit specified by the court and hand over the management of the Wakf to the elected representatives. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner, who was the first respondent in the Original Application before the Wakf Tribunal has preferred this revision. .4. The findings of the Wakf Tribunal that the Madrasa-e-Islamia, Mannadi, Chennai-1 was originally created as Wakf by Hafiz Mohammed Noorullah Sahib, father of the first respondent / applicant and he was holding the office of mutawalli till his life time, is not in dispute in the Civil Revision Petition. It is also an admitted fact that the first respondent herein who filed the Original Application before the Wakf Tribunal is one of the sons of the said Hafiz Mohammed Noorullah Sahib, who had constituted an advisory committee during his life time to assist him in the administration and management as mutawalli of the Wakf. 5. Madrasa-e-Islamia Wakf was admittedly created in order to provide religious education and to get holy kuran memorised by muslim students and for feeding freely the students learning the holy kuran. As per column 7 of the extract from the revenue register, there is no specific beneficiaries to the Wakf. 6. 5. Madrasa-e-Islamia Wakf was admittedly created in order to provide religious education and to get holy kuran memorised by muslim students and for feeding freely the students learning the holy kuran. As per column 7 of the extract from the revenue register, there is no specific beneficiaries to the Wakf. 6. The first respondent / applicant averred in the application that the role of the advisory committee was to assist and give advice to the erstwhile mutawalli Hafiz Mohammed Noorullah Sahib, however, the revision petitioner / first respondent, an unrecognised committee usurping the powers of the management and is mismanaging the wakf and the unrecognised committee has not furnished accounts and paid contribution to the second respondent. According to the first respondent / applicant, the revision petitioner / first respondent is not maintaining proper accounts and working against the interest of the wakf. Therefore, he filed the Original Application before the wakf tribunal, seeking the relief sought for in the application. 7. In the counter filed by the revision petitioner herein before the Tribunal, he denied the allegation that the managing committee is usurping the management and not bothered to take care of wakf properties, especially the properties in Trichy and Pudukottai. 8. Considering the materials available on record and the arguments advanced by both sides, the Wakf Tribunal allowed the application, directing the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board to take over the management of the applicant wakf and the properties forthwith and dispose of the application of the first respondent / applicant, dated 25.06.2006 within the time limit, after providing opportunity to the applicant and to conduct election before the specified date and hand over the management to the elected representatives. .9. Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below has not considered that no wakf deed was executed by the WAKIF, who established the Arabic Institution-Wakf and according to him, the management committee constituted by the father of the first respondent herein for better management of the wakf is being carried out and that the order has been passed outside the scope of the relief sought for by the first respondent / applicant and on that ground, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pleaded for allowing the revision petition. 10. 10. Per contra, Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahamed, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / applicant submitted that the revision petitioner has no loco standi to maintain the revision, since the advisory committee was appointed only for a specific purpose by the WAKIF Hafiz Mohammed Noorullah Sahib to assist him for a better management of the Wakf. 11. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, Wakf Board submitted that the revision petitioner has no legal right to administer the wakf, since he is neither the mutawalli of the wakf, nor representing any recognised management committee of the Wakf Board. In support of his contention, he drew the attention of this Court to Sections 38, 65 and 83 (1) of The Wakf Act, 1995. 12. In this Civil Revision Petition, this Court has to decide whether the revision petitioner has any loco standi or legal right to maintain the Civil Revision Petition and to administer the wakf, by name Madrasa-e-Islamia, Chennai. The revision petitioner has not disputed the fact that Hafiz Mohammed Noorullah Sahib, father of the first respondent was the WAKIF and he was the mutawalli of the wakf, only he constituted the advisory committee to assist and advice him for proper control and management of the wakf. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the revision petitioner is neither the mutawalli, nor an officer of a recognised management committee of the Wakf by the second respondent, Wakf Board and therefore, I am of the view that there is no legal right available to the revision petitioner to claim the management of the Wakf, as per the Wakf Act. 13. Section 83 (1) of the Wakf Act, 1995 reads as follows : "83 (1) : The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute as many Tribunals as it may think fit, for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a wakf or wakf property under this Act and define the local limits and jurisdiction under this Act of each of such Tribunals." As per this provision of law, Wakf Tribunal is empowered to determine the dispute in question, since the matter relates to the wakf and wakf property. 14. 14. As per Section 65 of the Wakf Act, Where no suitable person is available for appointment as a mutawalli of a wakf, or where the Board is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that the filling up of the vacancy in the office of a mutawalli is prejudicial to the interests of the wakf, the Board may, by notification in the interests of the wakf, the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, assume direct management of the wakf for such period or periods, not exceeding five years in the aggregate, as may be specified in the notification. .15. The Division Bench of this Court in, Salam Khan vs. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board & others, reported in 2005 (1) LW 676 , has held that the wakf tribunal has all powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. It has further held as follows : ."We may, further, clarify that the party can approach the Wakf Tribunal, even if no order has been passed under the Act, against which he is aggrieved. It may be mentioned that Sections 83(1) and 84 of the Act do not confine the Jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal to the determination of the correctness or otherwise of an order passed under the Act. No doubt Section 83 (2) refers to the orders passed under the Act, but, in our opinion, Sections 83(1) and 84 of the Act are independent provisions, and they do not require an order to be passed under the Act before invoking the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal. Hence, it cannot be said that a party can approach the Wakf Tribunal only against an order passed under the Act. In our opinion, even if no order has been passed under the Act, the party can approach the Wakf Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matters relating to a wakf or wakf property, as the plain language of Sections 83(1) and 84 indicate." .16. In the instant case, the revision petitioner is admittedly not the mutawalli of the wakf and not recognised as management committee by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and therefore, the revision petitioner has no loco standi or right to claim any right of management of the wakf. In the instant case, the revision petitioner is admittedly not the mutawalli of the wakf and not recognised as management committee by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and therefore, the revision petitioner has no loco standi or right to claim any right of management of the wakf. The prayer sought for by the first respondent herein as applicant before the Tribunal is only to appoint a receiver to manage and administer the Madrasa-e-Islamia wakf for the reasons stated therein. The allegations raised against the management committee of the revision petitioner, as found by the Tribunal is that of mismanagement against the interest of the Wakf, which is serious. In such circumstances, there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, directing the second respondent / Wakf Board to take over the management and conduct election for the wakf. 17. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board has made a Notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under reference WEA8/06/E5/Chennai, whereby ordered taking over the direct management of Madrasa-e-Islamia, 20 P.V.Iyer Lane, Mahfuz Khan Garden, Chennai – 600 001. As per this Notification, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 65 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and as per the Judgment of the court below in O.A.No.5 of 2006, dated 07.01.2008, it has ordered to take over the management of the wakf under its direct control for a period of six months. I could find no error or illegality in the impugned order and the Notification passed by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. In such circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, the second respondent Wakf Board is directed to dispose all the applications, pertaining to the wakf, according to law and conduct election within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and hand over the management of the wakf to the proper person or elected representatives and the compliance report shall be submitted before the Wakf Tribunal, within fifteen days thereafter. 18. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.