In a powerful judgment on the Munambam Waqf land dispute, the Kerala High Court warned that arbitrary waqf declarations could one day label even national monuments like the Taj Mahal or the Court’s own building as waqf property, threatening constitutional rights.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KERALA: In a landmark judgment, the Kerala High Court has cautioned against giving judicial legitimacy to arbitrary declarations of property as waqf. The Court warned that if such practices are accepted, even national monuments and public buildings, such as the Taj Mahal, the Red Fort, or the Court’s own premises, could one day be branded as waqf property.
This observation arose while addressing the Munambam Waqf land dispute, a long-standing controversy involving over 400 acres of land in Ernakulam district.
ALSO READ: Land-Grabbing Tactic Affecting Hundreds of Families: Kerala High Court Slams Waqf Board
Background of the Case
The Munambam land originally measured 404.76 acres, later reduced to 135.11 acres due to sea erosion.
In 1950, one Siddique Sait gifted the land to Farook College. At that time, several families were already residing on the land. Over time, the college sold parts of the land to these occupants.
For decades, no mention of waqf ownership appeared in any of these transactions.
However, in 2019, the Kerala Waqf Board (KWB) suddenly declared the land as waqf property, thereby rendering earlier land sales void.
This led to protests by around 600 families, prompting the Kerala government to appoint an Inquiry Commission in November 2024, headed by Justice C.N. Ramachandran Nair (Retd.). The move was challenged by the Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Samithi, claiming the government had no authority to probe waqf matters.
A single-judge bench (Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas) quashed the Commission’s appointment in March 2025, which led to the State’s appeal before a Division Bench.
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench reversed the single judge’s order and restored the Inquiry Commission.
It made powerful constitutional observations about unchecked waqf declarations and their consequences.
1. On the Arbitrary Declaration of Waqf Property
The Court expressed grave concern over the possibility of abuse of waqf powers, remarking:
“If judicial seal of approval is placed on such an arbitrary declaration of waqf, tomorrow any random building or structure, including Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Niyama Sabha Mandiram, or even this Court’s building would be vulnerable of being painted with the brush of a waqf property.”
The Bench warned that such unregulated powers would threaten the secular fabric of the Constitution.
2. On Constitutional Rights
The Court noted that allowing the Waqf Board to act arbitrarily would endanger citizens’ fundamental and constitutional rights, including:
- Article 300A – Right to property
- Article 19(1)(g) – Right to practice any profession or business
- Article 21 – Right to life and livelihood
“Acknowledging the existence of so much unaccounted power at the disposal of the Waqf Board would imperil the constitutionally guaranteed rights to property, business, and life,”
the Bench observed.
3. On Delay and Mala Fides
The Court pointed out that the Waqf Board’s declaration came after 69 years, with no inquiry or notice to affected parties.
“The action of the KWB clearly smacks of a foul action lacking bonafides, in the backdrop of land having assumed high commercial and business value.”
The Bench remarked that the declaration appeared to be a desperate attempt to wrest control of valuable land under the guise of waqf.
4. On the Court’s Jurisdiction
While the Waqf Samrakshana Samithi argued that only a Waqf Tribunal could decide such matters, the Court clarified that:
“The Court can always scrutinise whether the procedure of survey and quasi-judicial inquiry prior to declaration of any property as waqf has been diligently and sincerely observed.”
This ensures judicial oversight where constitutional rights are at stake.
ALSO READ: Denying Intimacy in Marriage: Divorce Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Explained
The Division Bench:
- Set aside the single judge’s order, thereby restoring the State’s Inquiry Commission.
- Did not quash the Waqf Board’s order, as the appeal was limited to the Commission’s validity.
The judgment is important for its emphatic defence of constitutional rights and sharp rebuke of arbitrary religious endowment claims.
Appearance:
The State government: Advocate General (AG) K Gopalakrishna Kurup, Special Government Pleader (GP) Revenue MH Hanil Kumar, Senior GPs S Kannan and V Manu and Special GP to the AG, CE Unnikrishnan
The State Waqf Board: Advocate Jasheed Hafiz
The other respondents: Advocates P Chandrasekhar, PK Ibrahim, KP Ambika, Zeenath PK, Jabeena KM, Anaz Bin Ibrahim, and Pradeep Kumar
Case Title:
State of Kerala v. Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi
WA NO. 603 OF 2025
Read Judgment: