Kerala HC Declares Munambam Land Gift, Not Waqf; Slams Board's 'Land-Grabbing'

Kochi: In a landmark judgment with profound implications for waqf jurisprudence and property law, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has held that a 1950 endowment of over 400 acres of land in Munambam was a "simple gift deed" and not a waqf. The court delivered a scathing critique of the Kerala State Waqf Board (KWB), labelling its 2019 declaration of the land as waqf property a "sheer exercise of land grabbing."

The ruling, by a bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., not only provides relief to nearly 600 families facing eviction but also sets a significant precedent on the essential characteristics of a waqf. The court simultaneously upheld the Kerala government's authority to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to address the complex humanitarian and legal issues arising from the long-standing dispute.

The judgment settles two writ appeals (WA 603/ 2025 and a connected case) filed by the State of Kerala against a Single Bench order dated March 17, which had previously quashed the appointment of the inquiry commission.

The Heart of the Dispute: A 1950 Deed

The case revolves around a tract of land in Munambam, originally 404.76 acres but now reduced to approximately 135 acres due to sea erosion. In 1950, Mohammed Siddique Sait gifted the property to the Farook College Managing Committee through an "endowment deed." For decades, the college managed the property, which was already home to numerous occupants. Over time, the college sold parcels of this land to the residents, who established their homes and communities.

The dispute ignited in 2019 when the Kerala State Waqf Board, nearly seven decades after the original transaction, unilaterally registered the entire property as waqf land. This act retrospectively voided all subsequent sales, casting a shadow of eviction over hundreds of families and triggering widespread protests. An appeal challenging the KWB's registration is currently pending before the Waqf Tribunal in Kozhikode.

In response to the escalating "law-and-order challenges," the Kerala government on November 27, 2024, appointed a one-man commission led by retired High Court Justice C.N. Ramachandran Nair. The commission's mandate was to conduct a fact-finding inquiry and recommend measures to protect the rights of "bona fide occupants." This move was challenged by the Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi, leading to the Single Bench order quashing the commission's formation, which the state subsequently appealed.

Deconstructing 'Waqf': The Court's Decisive Analysis

The Division Bench delved into the foundational legal question: was the 1950 deed a waqf? The court’s analysis pivoted on the principle of "permanent dedication," a cornerstone of waqf law across various statutes, including the Waqf Act, 1995.

“In all the enactments, the common feature about the definition of 'waqf' has been that there must be 'permanent dedication' by a person professing Islam of the property to be treated as waqf,” the bench observed.

Citing Supreme Court precedents, including Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs v Yusuf Bhai Chawla & Ors. , the court clarified that permanent dedication requires an unconditional, perpetual, and inalienable transfer where ownership vests in God for religious, pious, or charitable purposes.

Upon scrutinizing the 1950 deed, the High Court found it fell short of this stringent standard for several reasons:

• Power of Alienation: The deed expressly permitted the donee, Farook College, to sell, lease, or otherwise transfer the property to generate funds for educational purposes. The court reasoned that a property that can be alienated cannot be considered permanently dedicated.
• Reversionary Clause: Crucially, the document contained a provision for the property to revert to the donor or his successors if any portion remained unused. This, the court held, was antithetical to the concept of permanent and non-reversionary dedication to God.

“...such recitals specifically the one providing for reversion of the property back to the donor or his successor cannot be treated as amounting to permanent dedication or tying up of the whole property to 'the Almighty God',” the court stated emphatically.

Concluding this line of reasoning, the bench held that the document was not a waqf deed but a gift for a public charitable purpose.

“The endowment deed of 1950 never intended to create any permanent dedication in favour of the Almighty God, but was simpliciter a gift deed in favour of R5 Farooq Management, and therefore could have never qualified as a 'waqf deed' under any of the enactments of the Waqf Act 1954, 1984, or 1995,” the judgment declared.

A Rebuke to the Waqf Board

The court reserved its sharpest criticism for the Kerala Waqf Board. It noted that for 69 years, neither the donor's heirs nor the college treated the property as waqf. The Board's sudden 2019 declaration was condemned as an act of "blatant arbitrariness" executed without a proper inquiry involving the affected residents.

“The question is, therefore, whether the Court can keep its eyes shut to such a palpable illegality... on the part of KWB of having woke from deep slumber after 69 years and declaring entire parcel of property as waqf... The answer is clearly 'NO', as it appears nothing, but a sheer exercise of land grabbing on the part of KWB without following the due procedure,” the court observed.

This strong language underscores judicial intolerance for administrative overreach, particularly when it threatens the property rights of citizens who acted in good faith.

Upholding State's Power to Inquire

The second key component of the judgment was the validation of the state government's inquiry commission. The government had argued that its power to investigate was not hindered by the land's classification and was necessary to address the public unrest and protect bona fide purchasers. It clarified that the commission was a fact-finding body and could not adjudicate on title, a power reserved for the Waqf Tribunal.

The Division Bench agreed, setting aside the Single Bench's order. It affirmed the state's role in maintaining order and protecting citizens' interests, concluding that the state was not bound by the KWB's "palpably illegal" 2019 registration. This decision affirms the executive's authority to intervene in disputes that have significant public interest and law-and-order dimensions, even when a specialized tribunal has jurisdiction over the core legal issue.

Legal Implications and the Path Forward

This ruling is a significant victory for the hundreds of families in Munambam, whose property rights have been vindicated by the highest court in the state. While the matter is still pending before the Waqf Tribunal, the High Court's detailed findings on the nature of the 1950 deed will carry substantial persuasive weight.

For legal practitioners, the judgment serves as a crucial precedent on the interpretation of waqf deeds. It reinforces that the mere use of terms like "endowment" is insufficient; the deed's substance must reflect an unequivocal and permanent dedication to God, devoid of powers of alienation or reversionary interests.

Furthermore, the court’s rebuke of the Waqf Board may lead to greater scrutiny of how such boards exercise their powers to identify and register waqf properties, emphasizing the need for due process and consideration for long-standing third-party rights. The decision also clarifies the concurrent powers of the state government to conduct inquiries in matters that, while rooted in a specific statute, have broader social and public order implications.