Judgment :- In W.P.No.7378 of 2004, the petitioner seeks for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent wakf Board to frame a scheme in respect of Periya Mosque, Udayarkudi, Kattumannarkoil Taluk, Cuddalore District. 2. In W.P.No.34765 of 2005, the petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of declaration to declare the order in I.A.No.104 of 2004 in O.S.No.53 of 1952 dated 9. 2005 on the file of Wakf Tribunal-cum-principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore as illegal, contrary to the provisions of wakf Act, 1995 and null and void and without jurisdiction. 3. CRP.No.392 of 2006 has been filed challenging the very same order of the Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore dated 9. 2005 passed in I.A.No.104 of 2004 in O.S.No.53 of 1952. 4. At the outset, it will have to be mentioned that in W.P.No.7378 of 2004, an order came to be passed by me on 11. 2004 in WP.MP.Mo.8723 and 381122 of 2004 directing the Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore for appointment of trustees to the above referred to wakf. I also specifically stated that the said appointment of trustees to the wakf should be pursuant to the scheme decree passed in O.S.No.53 of 1952, as confirmed by this Court in A.S.No. of 1956 by judgment dated 18. 1959. It was therefore held therein that the first respondent wakf Board cannot be directed to frame a scheme and that the Principal sub Judge, Cuddalore, before whom the application in I.A.No.104 of 2004 in O.S. No.53 of 1952 had been filed, should be disposed of by the said court for appointment of trustees. The first respondent wakf Board was further directed to consider the applications of the eligible persons for being appointed as trustees and forward its list to the principal sub Judge, Cuddalore by fixing a time limit and based on the said list, the principal Sub Court, Cuddalore was directed to make the appointments of trustees. .5. It is pursuant to the said order dated 11. 2004, the Principal Sub Court, Cuddalore has now passed orders in I.A.No.104 of 2004 in O.S.No.53 of 1952 appointing respondents 3 and 9 to 12 in W.P.No.34765 of 2005 as trustees of the above referred to wakf Board. In the above stated factual background of this case, learned counsel appearing for the respective parties addressed their arguments. 2004, the Principal Sub Court, Cuddalore has now passed orders in I.A.No.104 of 2004 in O.S.No.53 of 1952 appointing respondents 3 and 9 to 12 in W.P.No.34765 of 2005 as trustees of the above referred to wakf Board. In the above stated factual background of this case, learned counsel appearing for the respective parties addressed their arguments. All the learned counsel in unison contended that after coming into force of the wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1995 Act’), by virtue of Sections 32 and 69 of the 1995 Act, all the wakfs in the State including the Wakfs in relation to which any scheme has been framed by any Court of law, vests with the first respondent wakf Board and that it is the duty of the said Board to exercise its power under the 1995 Act for the proper superintendence, maintenance, control and administration including any income derived from such properties of the Wakf. Learned counsel further pointed out that the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts as specified under Section 85 of the 1995 Act would be in relation to matters which could be tried by the Tribunals that are constituted under Section 83 of the 1995 Act. 6. We are concerned with the question whether the civil court viz. the principal Sub Court, Cuddalore can continue to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to the present wakf by virtue of the Scheme decree passed in O.S.No.52 of 1953 dated 18. 1959. Under Section 32 of Superintendence of wakfs in a state shall vest in the Board or the State itself. The explanation to Sub-section 1 of Section 32 of 1995 Act makes it clear that the expression “wakf” used in Sub-Section 1 would include a Sub-section 2 inter-alia contains the other functions of the Board, as stipulated in Sub-Section 1 of Section 32 of the 1995 Act and the power to settle Schemes of management for a wakf. The proviso to said Section 32(2) of 1995 Act however states that no such settlement should be made without giving the parties affected an opportunity of being heard. The proviso to said Section 32(2) of 1995 Act however states that no such settlement should be made without giving the parties affected an opportunity of being heard. Under Section 69 of the 1995 Act, it is again stated that the first respondent Board, if satisfied, whether on its own motion, or on the application of not less than five persons interested in any wakf for framing of the scheme for the proper administration and the wakf Board can by an order frame such scheme for the administration of the wakf after the consultation with the mutawalli or the applicant in the prescribed manner. The other sub Sections of 69 1995 Act specifies as to how such scheme framed by the wakf Board should be validated and enforced as well as for any aggrieved person to work out his remedy by approaching the appropriate Tribunal. Sub-Section 5 of Section 69 of 1995 Act invests with the wakf Board necessary powers for appointment of suitable person to perform all or any of the functions of the mutavalli for proper administration of the wakf. .7. A conjoint reading of the proviso along with the provisions along with the other provisions makes it abundantly clear that after the coming into force of the 1995 Act, the first respondent who has been exclusively invested with the powers can deal with all the existing wakf as well as wakfs to be created in future. Having regard to the explanation contained in Sub Section 1 of Section 32 of the 1995 Act, even the Wakfs governed by the provisions of any Civil Court decree shall vest with the first respondent Board automatically. Under such circumstances, there was no scope for the principal Sub Court, Cuddalore to have exercised its powers, merely based on the decree dated 18. 1959 passed in O.S.No.53 of 1952 as confirmed in A.S.No.5 of 1956. Any person who is interested in the wakf wish to seek for any appointment of trustees for the wakf should have only approached the first respondent Board even if it were to be under the scheme decree. Therefore, the application filed in I.A.No.104 of 2004 in O.S.No.53 of 1952 was not maintainable in law. 8. Be that as it may, in the light of the orders passed by this Court on 19. Therefore, the application filed in I.A.No.104 of 2004 in O.S.No.53 of 1952 was not maintainable in law. 8. Be that as it may, in the light of the orders passed by this Court on 19. 2004 in WP.MP.No.8723 and 38122 of 2004 in W.P.No.7378 of 2004, the Principal Sub Court, Cuddalore called upon the first respondent to forward the names of persons who can be considered for being appointed as trustees of the present wakf. As directed by the principal Sub Court, Cuddalore, the first respondent Board also forwarded 25 names out of 81 applications preferred before it and from and out of the said 25 names forwarded by the first respondent Board, the Principal Sub Court, Cuddalore appointed first five persons from that list viz. respondents 3 and 9 to 12 in W.P.No.37465 of 2005. It is stated that they have also assumed charge pursuant to the said orders of the Principal Sub Court, Cuddalore dated 9. 2005 passed in I.A.No.104 of 2004 in O.S.No.53 of 1952. Inasmuch as I have held that it is the power f the first respondent to have superintendence, control, administration and management of any wakf and its income exclusively after the coming into force of the 1995 Act, while setting aside the order dated 9. 2005 passed in I.A. No.104 of 2004 in O.S.No.53 of 1952, the first respondent Board is directed to enforce its authority in relation to the present wakf as has been directed in its proceedings dated 4. 2001 passed in RC.No.11375/E3/94 even in respect of the present wakf as has been directed in its proceedings dated 4. 2004 passed in RC.No.11375/E3/94 even in respect of the present wakf viz., Periya Mosque, Udayarmudi, Kattumannarkoil Taluk, Cuddalore District. .9. It is for the first respondent Board to examine the scheme decree passed in O.S.No.53 of 1952 and enforce its authority, as provided under the provisions of the 1995 Act. It is open to the first respondent wakf Board to examine whether or not the appointment of fresh office bearers under the scheme should be made afresh or permit the present set of office bearers viz. respondents 3 and 9 to 12 in W.P.No.37465/05 for any particular length of time. It is open to the first respondent wakf Board to examine whether or not the appointment of fresh office bearers under the scheme should be made afresh or permit the present set of office bearers viz. respondents 3 and 9 to 12 in W.P.No.37465/05 for any particular length of time. It is also open to the petitioners in these writ petitions as well as Civil Revision petition to approach the first respondent to either seek for any modification of the existing scheme decree in O.S.No.53 of 1952 or for appointment of fresh set of office bearers either under the scheme or by modification of the existing scheme decree by the first respondent wakf Board. Till the first respondent Board exercise its powers and take a decision one way or other, it is hereby directed that the first respondent Board shall permit the present set of office bearers viz. respondents 3 and 9 to 12 in WP.No.37465 of 2005 to continue to remain in office initially for a period of three months. The first respondent Board is also at liberty to appoint or authorize any of its Executive officer to function along with the above respondents 3 and 9 to 12 for proper administration of the wakf during the said period of three months. The continuation of holding of office by respondents 3 and 9 to 12 after the period of three months shall depend upon any orders to be passed by the first respondent, pursuant to the orders of this court. 10. The writ petitions and Civil Revision petition are ordered on the above terms. Consequently, all the connected M.P.s are closed. No costs.