Today, On 30th January, Munambam Waqf land dispute reached the Supreme Court, which granted a three-week extension for filing a counter affidavit in the SLP challenging the Kerala High Court’s order calling the Waqf Board’s 404-acre land notification a “land-grabbing tactic” move.
The Supreme Court granted a three-week extension for filing a counter affidavit in the Special Leave Petition challenging the Kerala High Court’s ruling.
This ruling characterized the Kerala State Waqf Board’s unilateral notification of 404 acres of coastal land in Munambam, Ernakulam, as Waqf property as a “land-grabbing tactic.”
Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan have rescheduled the case for three weeks while maintaining the stay on the High Court’s declaration that the Munambam land is not Waqf property.
Last month, the Court issued a notice regarding a petition by the Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi, clarifying that the High Court’s approval for forming an inquiry commission on the matter remains intact.
ALSO READ: Land-Grabbing Tactic Affecting Hundreds of Families: Kerala High Court Slams Waqf Board
In a landmark ruling reaffirming statutory power limits and property rights, the Kerala High Court took a firm stance against the Kerala State Waqf Board, deeming its unilateral notification nearly seven decades after the land was originally designated for educational purposes as a “land-grabbing tactic.”
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Syam Kumar V.M., ruled that the Waqf Board’s 2019 notification declaring the Munambam property as Waqf was ultra vires the Waqf Act of 1995 and its predecessors.
The Court upheld the State Government’s appointment of a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to investigate the dispute and recommend measures to protect the interests of legitimate landowners, noting that the government “is not bound by unilateral declarations of Waqf character made by the Board without following procedural requirements.“
The Court found that the Waqf Board’s declaration of the land as Waqf in 2019, long after it was endowed by Mohammed Siddique Sait in 1950, amounted to “nothing less than a land-grabbing exercise under the guise of religious endowment.”
It reinstated the State Government’s 2024 notification appointing a one-member inquiry led by Justice (Retd.) C.N. Ramachandran Nair, which had been previously invalidated by a Single Bench. The ruling emphasized that the State was acting within its rights under Section 97 of the Waqf Act, 1995, to issue directives and protect the interests of third-party purchasers and occupants threatened by the Waqf Board’s sudden claim of ownership.
The Court traced the history of ownership and endowment back to Document No. 2115 of 1950, an “endowment deed” executed by Mohammed Siddique Sait for the Farook College Managing Committee for educational and charitable purposes.
Although termed a “Waqf endowment,” the Court noted that the deed’s terms granted the donee the right to own, transfer, and sell portions of the property for educational aims.
This feature, the Court concluded, negated any notion of permanent dedication, essential for a valid Waqf under Islamic law. Citing definitions from the Mussalman Waqf Act of 1923, the Waqf Act of 1954, and the Central Waqf Act of 1995, the Bench determined that the document effectively functioned as a gift deed, lacking the characteristics of inalienability and permanent religious dedication.
Additionally, the Court referenced key precedents in its judgment, including State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Waqf Board (2022) 20 SCC 383 and Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal (2017) 13 SCC 174, reiterating that any Waqf declaration made without proper inquiry and participation of affected parties is legally invalid.
It cited Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee v. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) 16 SCC 264, stating that “without permanent dedication, no Waqf can come into existence.”
These cases underline that statutory protections cannot be circumvented under the guise of religious endowment.
Beyond its legal conclusions, the judgment also highlights the legislative developments that gave rise to such disputes.
The Court’s remarks reflect increasing concerns regarding how various amendments, beginning with Rajiv Gandhi’s 1984 amendment that granted Waqf Boards sole authority to determine Waqf property, to the 1995 Waqf Act establishing exclusive tribunals and broadening the Board’s jurisdiction, and the 2013 amendment under the Manmohan Singh-led UPA government which allowed Boards to make suo-motu land claims while limiting appellate remedies, have cumulatively enhanced the Board’s powers, often at the expense of civil and state authorities.
The Court’s strong language, describing the Kerala Board’s actions as a clear abuse of statutory authority, serves as a judicial reproach to decades of unregulated statutory expansion.
Furthermore, the judgment mentioned the recent Waqf (Amendment) Act of 2025, which the Supreme Court allowed to operate while a constitutional challenge is pending.
Case Title: Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi & Ors. vs. State of Kerala
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Waqf
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
