Munambam land dispute: Waqf body moves Supreme Court against Kerala HC verdict

The Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi has moved the Supreme Court of India challenging the verdict of the Kerala High Court which had upheld the State government's formation of an inquiry commission to examine the rights of around 600 families facing eviction after a property at Munambam was declared to be a waqf [Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi (Registered) v. State of Kerala & Ors.].On October 10, a Division Bench of the High Court set aside a single judge's order that had earlier quashed the State government's decision to constitute an inquiry commission led by retired Justice CN Ramachandran Nair to recommend solutions to the dispute. .In its special leave petition before the Supreme Court, the Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi has contended that the Division Bench transgressed its jurisdiction by disregarding the fact that proceedings are pending before the Waqf Tribunal, legitimised the government's overreach in ordering the Inquiry Commission, and rendered findings on the nature of the disputed property which was not even a subject matter of the proceedings. .Kerala High Court slams Waqf Board for notifying Munambam land as waqf property, says land-grabbing tactic.The dispute concerns land in Munambam, which originally measured 404.76 acres but has been reduced to around 135.11 acres due to sea erosion.In 1950, the land was gifted to the Farook College by one Siddique Sait. However, the land was already home to several people, who continued occupying the land, leading to legal battles between the college and the long-time occupants.Later, the college sold portions of the land to these occupants. These land sales failed to mention that the property was waqf land.In 2019, the Kerala Waqf Board (KWB) formally registered the land as waqf property, making the earlier sales void. This triggered opposition from residents who faced eviction.An appeal challenging the KWB's decision to classify the Munambam land as a waqf was filed before a waqf tribunal in Kozhikode.Meanwhile, in response to growing protests from around 600 families, the Kerala government appointed an inquiry commission in November 2024, led by retired Justice CN Ramachandran Nair to recommend solutions.This came to be challenged before the High Court by members of the Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Samithi, who argued the government had no power to inquire into Waqf properties outside the statute.A single-judge in March this year quashed the order appointing the Commission, ruling that such a Commission lacked legal authority to intervene in matters already adjudicated or pending under the Waqf Act, 1995.However, a Division Bench in October allowed the appeal filed by the State government against the single judge verdict, observing that the KWB's 2019 decision to declare disputed property in Munambam as a waqf was bad in law.The Division Bench did not go to the extent of quashing the KWB orders, but it held that the 1950 deed endowing the property was a gift deed, not a waqf deed. It also observed that the notification of the land as waqf was nothing but a land-grabbing tactic of the KWB, which has in turn affected hundreds of families occupying the land who were forced to take to the streets in protest..In its special leave petition before the Supreme Court, the Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi has contended that the Division Bench verdict virtually endorses the State government’s executive interference into a matter which is sub-judice before the statutory Tribunal, thereby violating the doctrine of statutory finality.The petitioner-organisation has also argued that the question of whether the property was waqf or not was not even a subject matter of these proceedings before the High Court but the Division Bench rendered findings in that regard. Hence, it acted beyond the scope and ambit of its powers, the plea has said.The petitioner has further argued that the Division Bench's approval of the Government Order legitimises executive overreach and misuse of statutory power to influence judicial outcomes.The petition was filed through advocate Abdulla Naseeh VT..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.