Munambam Land Not Waqf Property, Deed Contains No 'Permanent Dedication' To God: Farook College Argues In Kerala High Court

Farook College, which is embroiled in Munambam land dispute with Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi, a registered society which works to protect Waqf properties in the state, has claimed before the Kerala High Court that the lands in question are not Waqf property.The land was given by Siddiq Sait to Farook College in 1950. There is a dispute as to whether Siddiq intended it to be a gift or Waqf. A decision on the dispute may decide the fate of various residents, whose predecessors statedly bought the property from the College.The Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was hearing the petition challenging the appointment of Inquiry Commission to look into the dispute.Advocate K. I. Mayankutty Mather appearing for the College submitted that for a property to be waqf, there should be a permanent dedication to God. The College submitted that in the gift deed made by Siddiq Sait towards the College, it is mentioned that, if for some reason, the college is not operational at a future point of time, the property will revert back to Siddiq Sait or his successors. The College argued that since there is a condition for reversion, it cannot be regarded as a permanent dedication to God.The Petitioner- Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi on the other hand, submitted that the College had itself submitted an affidavit before the Civil Court, depicting that the property was waqf. It also relied on 1971 order of the Civil Court, which purportedly held that the property was given by a waqf deed, and not gift deed.Today the College submitted that the issue whether the deed was a waqf or gift was not before the civil court. Mather further submitted that the affidavit saying that it was waqf property was submitted by the vyavahara karyasthan of the College and the said person did not have any authority to file the affidavit. He stated that it was a suit against trespass on the property and no arguments relating to nature of property were made in the pleadings in that case. He also argued that the M. A. Nisar Commission included the land as waqf property without any basis.The Court orally observed that even the Commission's remark on the nature of the property will have far reaching consequences.Significant to note that the Court had, on the previous date, asked how the State could appoint a Commission, when the land is declared as waqf by the Civil Court. The College today urged that any remark from the Court that this is a waqf will have far reaching consequences.Background of the CaseReportedly, the issue came into public attention recently after the residents of Munambam started protesting as they could not pay land tax, get mutation of properties from Kuzhupilly Village Office pursuant to a 2022 High Court order. The residents of Munambam have filed a case before the High Court challenging the validity of the Waqf Act itself.Meanwhile the state government by its November 27, 2024 notification appointed the Commission after opinion that the same was necessary for the purpose of making an inquiry into a definite matter of public importance, namely, to recommend measures to be taken by the Government "to find a permanent solution" with respect to the dispute of ownership between the residents of Munambam and the Waqf Board over certain properties. The notification asks the Commission to enquire and report how to protect the rights and interests of the bonafide occupants of the land. It has also asked the Commission to identify the nature and extent of the property comprised in Old Survey No. 18/1 of the then Vadakekkara village of erstwhile Travancore state. The petitioner, Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi approached the High Court against the appointment of this order. Though the Court has not passed any order, reportedly the Commission has paused its work and is awaiting the orders of the Court.What Is The Public Purpose, HC AsksThe Kerala High Court asked the Government what the public purpose was which warranted the appointment of the Inquiry Commission. It said that the Commissions of Inquiry Act says that a Commission shall be appointed in matters of definite public importance. The petitioners had submitted that the Commission was appointed because the residents were protesting. The Court enquired whether the Government would appoint commission in future cases where a trespasser starts an agitation.How Can The Terms Of Reference Of The Commission Call The Occupants 'Bonafide'The Court asked how the Government came to a conclusion that the occupants are 'bonafide occupants'. In the terms of reference of Commission, it is stated that the “Commission shall enquire and report as to how to protect the rights and interests of the Bonafide occupants of the said land and recommend measures to be taken by the Government in this regard.” The Court orally said that as the Government already mentioned they are 'bonafide occupants' in the terms of reference, the Commission by statute cannot go beyond the reference and cannot come to a...

Munambam Land Not Waqf Property, Deed Contains No 'Permanent Dedication' To God: Farook College Argues In Kerala High Court

Manju Elsa Isac

Tags