IMPORTANT POINT
The appointment of a Commission of Inquiry by the State Government regarding waqf property is invalid as it violates the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, which prohibits any authority from adjudicating on waqf matters pending before the Waqf Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioners challenge a Government Order appointing a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 in relation to a property claimed to have been dedicated as waqf. Since the issues involved in these two writ petitions are almost identical, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 , (for brevity ‘the CoI Act’) confers power upon the appropriate Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into ‘definite matter of public importance’. In exercise of the said power, Justice C.N. Ramachandran Nair, a former Judge of this Court, has been appointed as per Ext.P1, to inquire into the issues referred to in the said Government Order.

3. Writ petitioners allege that the dispute now sought to be inquired into by the Commission relates to a waqf property, situated in Survey No.18/1 of Vadakkekara Village, which was the subject matter of O.S. No.53 of 1967 on the files of the Sub Court, North Paravur. In a judgment dated 12.07.1971, the trial court concluded that the document produced therein as Ext.P31 was not a gift deed but a waqf deed. The appeal against the said judgment was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in A.S. No.600/1971 on 30.09.1975. According to the petitioners, as a waqf property, the State Government is not the competent authority to appoint a Commission of Inquiry.

4. Petitioners also allege that in violation of the provisions of the waqf deed and the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) , the fourth respondent transferred portions of the waqf property to various persons, and the State, instead of protecting the said property, is now attempting to protect the trespassers by terming them as bonafide occupants. Petitioners also contend that Ext.P1 was issued without reference to the relevant factors, without any application of mind and in a perverse manner. Petitioners have alleged that the unauthorised occupants of the waqf property, who are rank trespassers and land grabbers, have been given the colour of bonafide occupants and in the absence of any jurisdictional fact to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, Ext.P1 has been issued. Petitioners have also pleaded that the Waqf Board had, in exercise of the powers under section 40 of the Act, declared the subject property to be a waqf property which is final and binding upon all. Petitioners also plead that, since the appeal filed by the fourth respondent is pending before the Waqf Tribunal, the Commission ought not to be permitted to render any opinion and the very appointment of the Commission itself, is a non est.

5. In W.P.(C) No.3817 of 2025, it is further pleaded that once a property has been declared to be a waqf property, the Government cannot issue any directions contrary to the waqf deed or its usage and practice and therefore, appointing a Commission of Inquiry contrary to the statutory provisions is without authority. Petitioners further allege that if at all any sale deed has been executed in favour of any person, the same can only be in contravention of the provisions of section 36A of the Wakf Act, 1954 and section 51(1-A) of the Act, and therefore, the Government is, by appointing the Commission of Inquiry, attempting to protect persons who are mere trespassers.

6. In the counter affidavit, the locus standi of the petitioners have been questioned and the appointment of the Commission is justified in their capacity as the appropriate Government as the subject is referable to entries in List-II and III of the Seventh Schedule. According to the first respondent, the inquiry is neither a judicial nor a quasi-judicial proceeding and that the Commission has no power of adjudication of the question of title, but is intended only as a mechanism to assimilate necessary information to apprise and enable the Government to decide the future course of action. It is further pleaded that the question of title has not been decided earlier by any Court and that the property was registered wit