ORDER : The civil revision petition is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.01.2006, passed in O.S.No.233 of 1998, on the file of the Principal Sub Court/Wakf Tribunal, Tirunelveli. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the nomenclature in the suit. 3. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for declaration, possession and past and future mesne profits. 4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that Sheik Zinda Madarasa (Darga) Thaikkal is a notified wakf and administered by its Executive Committee elected or nominated from time to time subject to the approval and supervision of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and the property described in the plaint schedule had been gifted and endowed by Sheik Mohideen Rowther, A.M.Paul Mohammed Rowther, Seyed Sathar Sahib and Segu Kader Sahib belonging to Palayamkottai to Sheik Sindha Madarasha Darga under a registered document, dated 08.07.1902 and the gift had been duly accepted and the possession of the gifted property was with the successive Muthavallies of the Dargah and the property gifted is situated in T.S.No.701, in Ward No.II, Block No.6, South Bazzar, Palayamkottai Municipality, presently, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation and its total measurement is 561 sq.ft., and the said property belonged to the plaintiff - wakf. It is the case of the plaintiff that proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act were initiated in respect of the above said property by the Government represented by the defendant as per the Award No.2/61, dated 29.06.1961 and the plaintiff's then Muthavalli objected to the acquisition proceedings. However, it was decided by the Acquiring Officer in his Award that Rs.361.28 be paid as compensation for the extent of 561 sq.ft., acquired on the ground of public purpose and the said sum was deposited in the Sub Court, Tirunelveli, in O.P.No.4 of 1962, since the plaintiff did not receive the amount so awarded. The said property was said to have been acquired for the purpose of carrying out health schemes sponsored by the local authority and under the Land Acquisition Act, the lands so acquired must be utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired. The plaintiff had never been desirous to settle for the compensation awarded in lieu of the property belonging to it being acquired. The plaintiff had never been desirous to settle for the compensation awarded in lieu of the property belonging to it being acquired. The said land, after notification and acquisition proceedings, was taken over by the defendant ostensibly for the commercial purpose and not used for the public purpose for which it had been acquired. It, thus, contravenes the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In the land acquired and taken over for carrying out health schemes, the defendant has constructed shops and is now said to be deriving a total monthly revenue of Rs.1,183/- and the local body had chosen the valuable land for augmenting its revenue even though the land acquired for the public purpose. The plaintiff is entitled to the mesne profits from the defendant as prayed for and the defendant is liable to pay the same to the plaintiff as claimed. The plaintiff's predecessors and concerned persons represented the matter to the Municipal Authorities and the District Collector to release the land and give it back to the wakf. But, the authorities did not comply with their demand and though the property is a wakf property and without the sanction of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, the acquisition proceedings could not be resorted and by way of the acquisition proceedings above stated, as the Dargah having been deprived of the only source of income from the property concerned, according to the plaintiff, it had issued a registered notice to the first defendant, dated 01.12.1994, to handover the property and though the first defendant had received the same neither chosen to send reply nor comply with the lawful demand of the plaintiff. The first defendant, in his written statement, had stated that the third defendant is a necessary party and hence, the third defendant has been impleaded as per the orders of the Court and hence, the suit. 5. The case of the first defendant as adopted by the third defendant is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not sustainable either in law or on facts. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the entitlement of the suit property by way of the gift and endowment as claimed in the plaint through proper evidence. 5. The case of the first defendant as adopted by the third defendant is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not sustainable either in law or on facts. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the entitlement of the suit property by way of the gift and endowment as claimed in the plaint through proper evidence. It is false to state that the suit property, after the acquisition proceedings, had been converted for commercial purpose and not used for the public purpose for which it had been acquired. The defendants did not contravene the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim any mesne profits from the defendants. The allegation made by the plaintiff that he had made representations to various authorities to get back the land in question has to be established by him. It is false to state that the plaintiff's source of income is only the suit property. The first defendant had not received any notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit as framed is not maintainable, since the Court has no jurisdiction under the provisions of the Wakf Act to entertain the suit. The suit property had been acquired by the Government under the land acquisition proceedings and compensation amount had been deposited before the Tribunal. Hence, the plaintiff should set aside the land acquisition proceedings taken by the Government in respect of the suit property. The suit is bad for non-joinder of the Government as a party to the proceedings. No notice has been given to the Wakf Board as contemplated under law. The plaintiff has no right to question the land acquisition proceedings in the suit and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. The case of the second defendant is that the suit claim is true and the first defendant has not put the property for the purpose for which it was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and hence, the property has to be handed over to the plaintiff with mesne profits as prayed for and hence, the suit may be decreed as prayed for. 7. 7. In the reply statement, the plaintiff has pleaded that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the disputes relating to the wakf property or the wakf under the Wakf Act and the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the suit property are void as they were initiated without issuing proper notice as provided under the Act and without giving an opportunity to the Wakf Board and hence, there is no need on the part of the plaintiff to set it aside and the Government is not a necessary party to the proceedings and as the plaintiff is claiming the property from the first defendant, who is holding the same for its use under the claim of public purpose, the issuance of Section 80 notice does not arise and hence, the suit be decreed as prayed for. 8. On the basis of the pleadings set out above, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court for determination: (i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek for the reliefs of declaration and possession as prayed for? (ii). Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? (iii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the past and future mesne profits as prayed for? and (iv). To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to? 9. In support of the plaintiff's case, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked and on the side of the defendants', D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 10. As seen from the Judgment of the Court below, it is found that a preliminary issue was taken up for consideration as to the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal to decide the suit and it is found that the said issue was answered in favour of the plaintiff holding that the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the suit. 11. The Court below, on a consideration of the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties and the materials placed, finally dismissed the suit laid by the plaintiff. It is found that the Court below inter alia holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, has refused to grant the reliefs to the plaintiff as prayed for. Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree of the Court below, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 12. The following points arise for consideration in this civil revision petition: (i). Aggrieved over the Judgment and Decree of the Court below, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 12. The following points arise for consideration in this civil revision petition: (i). Whether the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the suit laid by the plaintiff? (ii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the reliefs of declaration, possession and past and future mesne profits as prayed for? and (iii). To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to? POINT NOS.I & II: 13. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for the main reliefs of declaration and possession and other reliefs. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belongs to the plaintiff - Mosque. As regards the claim of title to the suit property that it is the wakf property, it is found that no serious resistance has been made by the defendants with reference to the same. All that they would state is that the onus is upon the plaintiff - Mosque to establish the title to the suit property as claimed by it. In this connection, it is also found that based upon the materials placed by the respective parties, even on the basis of Ex.B1 and in particular on the basis of the gift deed marked as Ex.A10 and the proforma report marked as Ex.A9 and other allied documents, it is found that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff - Mosque. 14. Be that as it may, even as per the case of the plaintiff, the suit property had been acquired by the Government for a specific purpose during 1961 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and further, according to the plaintiff, the said proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act were objected to by the then Muthavalli of the plaintiff - Mosque. It could, therefore, be seen that to the knowledge of the plaintiff, the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were initiated by the Government and accordingly, the lands had come to be acquired for a specific purpose. It is, therefore, seen that the Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board would also be in the know of things about the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government against the suit property. It is, therefore, seen that the Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board would also be in the know of things about the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government against the suit property. The then Muthavalli of the plaintiff - Mosque would have apprised the same to the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board also and therefore, it cannot be stated that the Wakf Board has no knowledge about the land acquisition proceedings. In such view of the matter, when the acquisition proceedings had been initiated against the suit property even during the year 1961, accordingly, the suit property had also been acquired and further, even according to the case of the plaintiff, the compensation amount for the same had also been deposited in the concerned Court, but according to the plaintiff - Mosque, it had not received the amount so awarded as it has reservation against the acquisition proceedings, the factum remains that the acquisition proceedings of the suit property right from the inception had been done to the knowledge of the plaintiff and as seen above, even the Wakf Board has knowledge about the same. In the written statement filed by the Wakf Board, there is no plea that the Wakf Board had no knowledge about the acquisition proceedings as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint. Therefore, the facts in toto would go to establish that the plaintiff - Mosque as well as the Wakf Board are fully aware of the acquisition proceedings. 15. Now claiming that the suit property had been put into use for a different purpose other than the purpose for which it had been acquired by the first defendant and further alleging that inasmuch as no notice had been issued to the Wakf Board as contemplated under law and as the sanction of the Board has not been obtained with reference to the acquisition proceedings, according to the plaintiff, the acquisition proceedings are null and void and therefore, it is stated that despite the acquisition proceedings, the suit property still vests only with the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff is necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs. 16. 16. It is contended by the defendants 1 and 3 that the suit property had been acquired by the Government for a specific purpose and put into use for the said purpose and since the suit property had been acquired to the knowledge of the plaintiff - Mosque and the suitable award amount has also been deposited in the Court concerned, it is the contention of the said defendants that on the acquisition of the suit property by the Government, it is only the Government, who has title with reference to the same and thereafter, the plaintiff cannot lay any claim over the suit property as the owner thereof and if at all the plaintiff is aggrieved over the acquisition proceedings as such, it is for the plaintiff to approach the concerned authorities with reference to the same and hence, it is the contention of the said defendants that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable as in the suit, the plaintiff is only impugning the acquisition proceedings as such, for which determination, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek and obtain the reliefs sought for in the suit. 17. The second defendant, namely, Wakf Board is sailing with the plaintiff and supports the case of the plaintiff. 18. Inasmuch as the suit property had been acquired to the knowledge of the plaintiff, though the plaintiff claims that he had made protests to the same and with reference to the same, there is no material placed on record, the fact remains that the suit property had been acquired by the Government. In such view of the matter, it is found that as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 3, the plaintiff is not entitled to canvass the rightness or the legality of the acquisition proceedings in the Civil Court, whose jurisdiction has been ousted. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 3, the Civil Court being not given the jurisdiction to decide the issues pertaining to the land acquisition proceedings as per the Act and the person aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings has to seek his remedy only by approaching the constitutional Courts, it is seen that the Civil Court as such has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 19. 19. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as the learned counsel for the second defendant that inasmuch as the suit property is admitted to be a wakf property, the Wakf Tribunal has the complete jurisdiction for deciding all the issues pertaining to the subject property as per Section 83 of the Wakf Act (hereinafter, referred to as “the Act”) and therefore, the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal cannot be belittled by the acquisition proceedings and therefore, it is stated that the suit laid by the plaintiff before the Wakf Tribunal is legally maintainable and in this connection, the decision reported in 2011 (1) CTC 636 [Board of Wakf, West Bengal & another vs. Anis Fatma Begum and another] is relied upon. No doubt, in the said decision, it has been held that the Wakf Tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine all the matters pertaining to the wakf property. But, the fact remains in this case that it is not a simpliciter suit for the determination of the title of the suit property as to whether it is a wakf property or otherwise. As seen above, the plaintiff by way of the present suit has indirectly questioned or challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government against the suit property. In such view of the matter, when on the acquisition, the property acquired becomes vested with the Government as per law, it has to be seen whether still the plaintiff could maintain the suit before the Wakf Tribunal for claiming title to the suit property as such. 20. No doubt, prior to the acquisition proceedings, the suit property belonged to the plaintiff - Mosque. But, after the acquisition, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 3, the suit property has become vested with the Government. When to the knowledge of the plaintiff as well as to the knowledge of the Wakf Board the suit property had been acquired by the Government, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to throw a challenge to the same in the proceedings before the Wakf Tribunal by alleging that the land acquisition proceedings are null and void has to be seen. When to the knowledge of the plaintiff as well as to the knowledge of the Wakf Board the suit property had been acquired by the Government, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to throw a challenge to the same in the proceedings before the Wakf Tribunal by alleging that the land acquisition proceedings are null and void has to be seen. The plaintiff has challenged the acquisition proceedings in this case on the footing that prior to the acquisition proceedings, no notice as contemplated under law has been given to the Wakf Board and in such view of the matter, the proceedings of the acquisition become null and void and hence, the Government cannot lay any claim over the suit property and the suit property continues to remain vested only with the plaintiff - Mosque. In this connection, strong reliance is placed upon Section 91 of the Wakf Act. It has to be, therefore, seen is that whether the plaintiff's suit could be saved by virtue of Section 91 of the Act. 21. A perusal of Section 91 of the Act read with the other provisions of the Act would go to show that even though the Wakf Tribunal has been given the jurisdiction to entertain the disputes as regards the wakf property, it is found that as regards the property belonging to the wakf, the Wakf Act does not state that such property cannot at all be acquired by the Government. On the other hand, a reading of Section 91 of the Act would go to show that even in respect of the property belonging to the wakf, the Government is empowered to initiate acquisition proceedings and when the property in question is a wakf property, the procedures to be followed have been outlined in Section 91 of the Act. A perusal of Section 91 of the Act would go to show that if, in the course of the land acquisition proceedings, the subject matter is found to be a wakf property, then as per Section 91(1) of the Act, a notice of such acquisition shall be served by the Collector on the Board and further proceedings shall be stayed to enable the Board to appear and plead as a party to the proceeding at any time within three months from the date of the receipt of such notice. 22. 22. Now, according to the plaintiff, no notice as such has been served on the Wakf Board. As regards the above case of the plaintiff, it is found that no material has also been produced by the defendants to establish that the notice contemplated under Section 91(1) of the Act has been complied with as regards the acquisition proceedings initiated against the suit property. In this case, strangely neither the plaintiff not the defendants had cared to place the records pertaining to the acquisition proceedings before the Court below for one reason or the other. It is found that each blame the other for not producing the concerned records and each also fix the responsibility only on the opposite party to place the record and not on them for one reason or the other. Be that as it may, the position remains that the records pertaining to the acquisition proceedings are not available with the Court for perusal. When the plaintiff lays the challenge that the Wakf Board has not been served with notice as mandated under Section 91(1) of the Act and when with reference to the same, there is no material forthcoming on the part of the defendants, it has to be held that the notice required to be served on the Wakf Board has not been given in the land acquisition proceedings by the Government. 23. Whether on the above said fact alone, it has to be seen whether the proceedings initiated qua the acquisition would become null and void. A perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 91 of the Act would go to show that the Wakf Board, on coming to know of the acquisition proceedings initiated against the wakf property, it may suo motu at any point of time before the award is made, appear and plead as a party to the proceeding. Therefore, it is found that even if no notice is served on the Wakf Board as contemplated or mandated under sub-section (1), if the Wakf Board has knowledge about such acquisition proceedings initiated against the wakf property, as per sub-section (2) of Section 91, it has got right to get itself impleaded in the proceedings as a party. 24. Therefore, it is found that even if no notice is served on the Wakf Board as contemplated or mandated under sub-section (1), if the Wakf Board has knowledge about such acquisition proceedings initiated against the wakf property, as per sub-section (2) of Section 91, it has got right to get itself impleaded in the proceedings as a party. 24. A reading of sub-section (3) of Section 91 would go to show that on the Wakf Board entering appearance in the matter either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), it is found that no order shall be passed under Sections 31 and 32 of the Act or under the corresponding provisions of the other law referred to in sub-section (1) without giving an opportunity to the Board to be heard. Insofar as this case is concerned, when it has been found that no notice has been served on the Wakf Board as required under sub-section (1), however when it is seen that the plaintiff - Mosque is well aware of the acquisition proceedings against the suit property from the inception and the Wakf Board has also knowledge of the same, it is seen that the Wakf Board, on coming to know about the same, should have taken appropriate steps to get itself impleaded as a party to the acquisition proceedings as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 91 of the Act. However, it is found that the Wakf Board had not chosen to get itself impleaded as a party to the acquisition proceedings. 25. What is the fate of the lands acquired without notice to the Wakf Board as mandated under sub-section (1) is provided under sub-section (4) of Section 91 of the Act. It is found that where without giving an opportunity to the Wakf Board to be heard, an order had come to be passed under Section 31 or Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act or under the corresponding provisions of the other law, it is stated that such orders shall be declared void, if the Board within one month of its coming to know of the order, applies in this behalf to the authority, which made the order. Therefore, it is found that the order passed under Section 31 or Section 32 of the Act or under the corresponding provisions of the other law, shall become void only on the Wakf Board applies to the authority with reference to the same within one month on coming to know of the order. In such view of the matter, when sub-section (4) of Section 91 of the Act remains as above and when it is clearly found that the Wakf Board has knowledge of the acquisition proceedings of the suit property right from the inception, if really the Wakf Board has any interest in the property concerned, it should have taken all the endeavours to apply to the concerned authority as against the acquisition order passed in respect of the suit property so as to divest the suit property from the land acquisition proceedings. However, though the Wakf Board has knowledge of the acquisition proceedings, it is found that no such step has been taken by the Wakf Board to make a requisition to the concerned authority to relieve the suit property from the acquisition proceedings. A reading of sub-section (4) of Section 91 of the Act would go to how that the Wakf Board, on coming to know of the order, should apply to the concerned authority, within a particular time, who made the order and only in such an event, the land acquisition proceedings shall be declared as void. A reading of sub-section (4) of Section 91 of the Act would go to how that the Wakf Board, on coming to know of the order, should apply to the concerned authority, within a particular time, who made the order and only in such an event, the land acquisition proceedings shall be declared as void. Insofar as this case is concerned, when it is found that no such claim has been made by the Wakf Board to the appropriate authority challenging the acquisition proceedings and when it is seen from the plaint averments that the plaintiff is completely aware of the acquisition proceedings from the inception and when it is also the case of the plaintiff that the award amount has been duly deposited in the concerned Court and when the Wakf Board has not pleaded ignorance about the same in the written statement, it is implied that the Wakf Board has knowledge about the same also and therefore, when as provided under sub-section (4) the Wakf Board has not applied to the concerned authority throwing challenge to the acquisition proceedings, the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the land acquisition proceedings stand null and void on the mere footing that no notice has been served on the Wakf Board as regards the acquisition proceedings as such cannot be accepted in any manner. Merely because the notice contemplated under sub-section (1) has not been served that by itself would not render the acquisition proceedings null and void as argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the second defendant. On the other hand, the further requirement is that only on the Wakf Board throwing a challenge to the same with the concerned authority, on coming to know of the same within a particular time, the acquisition proceedings would stand null and void and insofar as this case is concerned, when such challenge has not been thrown by the Wakf Board till date before the concerned authority despite having knowledge about the land acquisition proceedings right from the inception, the case of the plaintiff that the acquisition proceedings have to be declared as null and void as such cannot be accepted. 26. In the light of the above discussions, it is found that following the acquisition proceedings of the suit property, the suit property had become vested with the Government. 26. In the light of the above discussions, it is found that following the acquisition proceedings of the suit property, the suit property had become vested with the Government. For reclaiming the suit property again as of its own, the suit had been laid by the plaintiff. However, when by way of the present suit, the plaintiff is throwing a challenge only to the acquisition proceedings, which cannot be done in a Civil Court and even in the Wakf Tribunal as such and the only remedy being available to the plaintiff is to move the appropriate constitutional authorities as provided under the Act and also as determined by the Court below, it is found that the Wakf Tribunal as such has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit laid by the plaintiff and accordingly, it is found that the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff in the suit also cannot be granted by the Wakf Tribunal. 27. In the light of the above discussions, I hold that the Wakf Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the suit laid by the plaintiff. I, further, hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain the reliefs of declaration, possession and past and future mesne profits as prayed for. Accordingly, Point Nos.I and II are answered against the plaintiff. POINT NO.III: 28. In conclusion, the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.01.2006, passed in O.S.No.233 of 1998, on the file of the Principal Sub Court/Wakf Tribunal, Tirunelveli, are confirmed and the civil revision petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no order as to costs.