Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Kerala High Court's Finding That Munambam Land Isn't Waqf

Challenging the Kerala High Court's finding that the Munambam property is not a Waqf land, an organisation from Kerala has filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court.

The petition filed by Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi questions the judgment delivered by a division bench of the Kerala High Court on October 10 that upheld the State Government's decision to appoint a one-member Commission of Inquiry to examine the status and extent of a 404.76-acre property in Munambam. 

Background

The Munambam issue concerns a 404.76-acre stretch of land in Ernakulam district that was originally transferred to Farook College Managing Committee by one Mohammed Sidhique Sait through a 1950 deed. Over the decades, the College alienated portions of this land to various individuals, many of whom constructed homes and other buildings. In 2019, the Kerala Waqf Board classified the land covered by the 1950 deed as Waqf property, treating the deed as a Waqf deed rather than a gift. This move was opposed by families and individuals who had purchased the land from Farook College. The protests led by Munambam residents gained national attention, particularly during public debates surrounding the Waqf Amendment Act 2025. In response, the State Government appointed a judicial Commission headed by former High Court judge Justice C N Ramachandran Nair to inquire into the dispute.

A single judge of the Kerala High Court later quashed the inquiry, holding that the matter fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal. However, in writ appeal by the State, a division bench set aside the single bench's order. At the same time, the division bench also made certain remarks that the contested property was not a Waqf land.  It also observed that the State Waqf Board's registration of the Munambam land as Waqf was ultra vires the Waqf Act, 1995.

Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi questions the division bench's judgment

The Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi, which was also the petitioner in the Kerala High Court challenging the Commission Inquiry, argues that the validity of the waqf registration was not an issue before the High Court in the writ appeals and that the State had not sought any such declaration.  The only issue before the High Court was whether the State had the power to appoint a Judicial Commission on an issue which was sub-judice before the Waqf Tribunal. However, the High Court travelled beyond pleadings and ventured into factual determination regarding the nature of the 1950 endowment deed.

The SLP argues that examining the intention of the waqif, interpreting the endowment deed, and deciding whether it is a waqf or a gift are matters requiring trial and evidence, which lie exclusively within the domain of the  Waqf Tribunal. It was also pointed out that proceedings are ongoing in the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode, challenging the Waqf Board's 2019 declaration registering the contested property as “Mohammed Sidhique Sait Waqf”.

"The Hon'ble High Court's pronouncement declaring the Waqf registration invalid effectively prejudices the pending proceedings before the Waqf Tribunal, rendering the statutory adjudication infructuous and infringing upon the rights of the Petitioner and the Waqf Board," the petitioner said.

The petitioner further states that the nature of the property had already been determined by a civil court in O.S. No. 53 of 1967, where the Sub Court, Paravur had held the 1950 document executed in favour of Farook College to be a waqf deed. This finding was affirmed by the Kerala High Court in appeal in 1973 and was never challenged by the Farook College authorities. The petitioner argues that this prior determination operates against the world and cannot be reopened through executive inquiry.

Commisison inquiry is an impermissible parallel adjudication

The petitioner also questions the High Court's validation of the Commission of Inquiry, by arguing that it creates an adjudicatory forum in parallel to the Waqf Tribunal, which has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the issue. It is argued that the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 does not permit the ordering of a Commission inquiry into matters that are already sub-judice.

"By upholding the G.O. and permitting a Commission of Inquiry to “identify the nature and extent of the property,” the High Court effectively permitted a parallel adjudicatory process, which directly contravenes the statutory scheme of the Waqf Act and defeats the legislative intent of Sections 83 and 85, which bar interference by any other authority or court in matters to be decided by the Tribunal," the SLP stated.

The petition has been filed through Abdulla Naseeh, Advocate-on-Record.

KERALA WAQF SAMRAKSHANA VEDHI (REGISTERED) Vs. STATE OF KERALA | Diary No. 66064 / 2025