The Munambam Waqf land dispute intensifies as the Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi moves the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s ruling. The case impacts over 600 families and questions the legality of the Waqf Board’s 2019 land declaration.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The long-standing Munambam land dispute has reached the Supreme Court after the Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi filed a special leave petition (SLP) challenging a recent Kerala High Court Division Bench verdict. The dispute, involving over 600 families, concerns the classification of nearly 135 acres of land as waqf property. This decision has triggered protests, legal battles, and now, scrutiny by the Supreme Court.
ALSO READ: Land-Grabbing Tactic Affecting Hundreds of Families: Kerala High Court Slams Waqf Board
Waqf Body’s Case Before the Supreme Court
The Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi has argued that the High Court’s Division Bench:
- Overstepped its jurisdiction, especially because the matter is pending before the Waqf Tribunal.
- Rendered findings on whether the land was a waqf or not, an issue not directly before the court.
- Allowed executive overreach by upholding the government’s Commission.
- Violated the doctrine of statutory finality, which gives the Tribunal primary authority in waqf disputes.
The petitioners emphasized that the verdict could potentially influence or undermine ongoing judicial proceedings.
Background of the Munambam Land
The disputed land in Munambam once measured 404.76 acres, but due to decades of sea erosion, it has shrunk to around 135.11 acres. In 1950, the land was gifted to Farook College by Siddique Sait. By then, several families were already residing on the land, leading to a prolonged conflict between the college authorities and the occupants.
To resolve these tensions, Farook College sold portions of the land to the residents, without mentioning that the land could be waqf property.
The Kerala Waqf Board formally registered the land as waqf property in 2019, rendering prior sales allegedly void. This led to protests by around 600 families facing possible eviction. In response, the Kerala government appointed an Inquiry Commission in November 2024, headed by retired Justice CN Ramachandran Nair, to examine the rights of the families.
The appointment of the Commission was challenged by members of the Waqf Samrakshana Samithi, arguing that the government lacked the power to intervene in waqf matters. The Single Judge, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, quashed the State’s decision, prompting the appeal.
Kerala High Court: Conflicting Verdicts
Single Judge Verdict (March 2024)
A single judge struck down the government’s commission, holding that:
- The State had no jurisdiction to examine matters under the Waqf Act, 1995.
- Such commissions cannot intervene in issues already before the Waqf Tribunal.
Division Bench Verdict (October 2024)
1. KWB’s Declaration Was Too Late and Legally Invalid
The Court held that the Kerala Waqf Board declared the land as a waqf almost 70 years too late, violating multiple Waqf Acts. Because of this unreasonable delay, the 2019 declaration was deemed legally unenforceable.
2. The 1950 Deed Was Only a Gift Deed
The Bench ruled that the 1950 endowment was not a waqf deed, as it did not create a permanent religious dedication. It was simply a gift made to Farook College, and therefore could not be treated as a waqf under any version of the Waqf Act.
3. KWB’s 2019 Notification Amounted to Land-Grabbing
The Court criticized the Waqf Board sharply, calling its notification an ultra vires action and likening it to a land-grabbing tactic that endangered the livelihood of hundreds of families.
4. State Government Not Bound by KWB’s Declaration
The Bench stated that the government was not obligated to accept the Waqf Board’s classification. It had the authority to appoint an Inquiry Commission and issue directions under Section 97 of the Waqf Act.
5. Petitioners Lacked Locus Standi
The Court found that the original petitioners had no legal standing to challenge the government’s decision. The single judge should not have entertained their petition.
Case Title:
Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi (Registered) v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Waqf
