Kerala High Court Curbs Arbitrary Waqf Declarations, Citing 'Land Grabbing Tactics'

KOCHI, KERALA – In a landmark judgment with far-reaching implications for property law and administrative oversight, the Kerala High Court has delivered a trenchant critique of the arbitrary declaration of private and public properties as waqf, describing the practice as "nothing less than a land grabbing tactic." The ruling reverses a single-judge order and restores a State-appointed Commission of Inquiry to probe a dispute involving over 400 acres of land and the livelihoods of 600 families in Munambam.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar VM, in its decision in The State of Kerala vs TKI Ahamed Sherief & Ors (W.A.Nos.603 & 606 of 2025), cautioned against granting a judicial seal of approval to such belated and unsubstantiated claims by Waqf Boards. The court warned of a perilous slippery slope where unchecked power could endanger iconic national monuments and even judicial buildings.

"If judicial seal of approval is placed on such an arbitrary declaration of waqf, tomorrow any random building or structure, including Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Niyama Sabha Mandiram (State Legislature Complex), or even this Court’s building would be vulnerable of being painted with the brush of a waqf property by the waqf board on the basis of any random document at any point of time," the Bench observed in its strongly-worded judgment.

The ruling is poised to become a significant precedent in property disputes across India, where similar challenges against retroactive waqf claims are pending, and it arrives amidst a national legislative overhaul through the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability in waqf administration.

---

The Munambam Dispute: A 70-Year Saga

The case revolves around a vast tract of land in Munambam, Ernakulam district, originally measuring over 400 acres. In 1950, the land was gifted by Siddique Sait to Farook College. Over the subsequent decades, the college sold parcels of this land to hundreds of families who had been residing there, with transactions proceeding without any mention of waqf status.

The dispute erupted in 2019—nearly 70 years after the original deed—when the Kerala Waqf Board (KWB) unilaterally declared the entire property as waqf land. This sudden declaration effectively nullified decades of legitimate sales, jeopardizing the property rights and livelihoods of around 600 families. The residents, now classified as unauthorized encroachers, were barred from paying land tax and faced eviction proceedings.

In response to widespread protests, the Kerala government in November 2024 constituted a Commission of Inquiry, headed by retired High Court Judge C.N. Ramachandran Nair, to investigate the matter. However, a single-judge bench quashed the commission in March 2025, holding that the State government lacked jurisdiction as the matter fell exclusively under the purview of the Waqf Act, 1995. The State of Kerala subsequently appealed this decision, leading to the Division Bench’s decisive intervention.

---

Judicial Scrutiny of Waqf Board's Powers and Procedures

The Division Bench systematically dismantled the legal basis of the KWB's 2019 declaration, focusing on three core areas: the nature of the original deed, the inexcusable delay, and the flagrant disregard for statutory procedure.

1. The 1950 Deed: A Gift, Not a 'Waqf'

Central to the court's reasoning was its interpretation of the 1950 endowment deed. The Bench concluded that the document was a "simpliciter a gift deed" and not a waqf, as it lacked the essential element of a "permanent dedication in favour of the Almighty God (Allah)." Instead, it conferred absolute ownership and rights of transfer upon the Farook College Management Committee. The court held that the mere nomenclature of "waqf endowment" could not override the substantive clauses of the document, a vital distinction for practitioners handling property documents.

"The KWB unfortunately failed to examine this vital aspect of the waqf deed and mechanically declared the property as a waqf property," the court noted, emphasizing that a statutory body cannot act on nomenclature alone.

2. The 69-Year 'Himalayan Silence': A Fatal Delay

The judgment heavily condemned the KWB's "Himalayan silence" for 69 years. The Bench questioned what prevented the Board from acting for seven decades, despite multiple iterations of the Waqf Act (1954, 1984, 1995) mandating timely surveys and registration of waqf properties.

"The inordinate delay in itself is sufficient enough a reason to taint the whole exercise of KWB as unreasonable and arbitrary," the court held. It further stated that the sudden action, taken after the land had acquired significant commercial value, "smacks of a foul action lacking bonafides" and was a "desperate attempt to somehow rest control." This underscores the critical role of the principles of laches and estoppel in administrative law, particularly when third-party rights have crystallized over time.

3. Procedural Lapses and Violation of Fundamental Rights

The court found that the KWB's declaration was vitiated by a complete failure to adhere to mandatory statutory procedures, including conducting a survey, holding a quasi-judicial inquiry, and ensuring publication in the official gazette. This procedural failure, the court found, rendered the declaration unenforceable.

More profoundly, the Bench framed the KWB's actions as a direct assault on the constitutional rights of citizens. It held that such arbitrary power imperils the right to property under Article 300A and throttles the rights to life, livelihood, and business under Articles 19 and 21. "The brazen manner in which the KWB has acted...shows reckless disregard of not only the provisions of the Waqf Act, but also the fundamental rights of a large number of citizens," the judgment stated.

---

Upholding State's Power and Affirming Judicial Review

In a significant affirmation of governmental and judicial oversight, the Division Bench reversed the single judge's order and upheld the State's authority to form the Commission of Inquiry. The court ruled that the State, as the custodian of its citizens' fundamental rights, was not bound by the KWB's "legally unsound declaration."

The judgment also clarified the scope of writ jurisdiction in such matters. It held that despite the availability of an alternative remedy before the Waqf Tribunal, the High Court could intervene to examine whether a statutory body has acted fairly and reasonably, especially when fundamental rights are at stake and the facts are based on "unimpeachable and admitted documents."

While declaring the KWB's action illegal and unenforceable, the court refrained from formally quashing it, stating its findings were sufficient to establish that the State government was not hindered by the declaration in proceeding with its inquiry.

National Context and Future Implications

This judgment resonates with the ongoing national discourse on waqf property management, which has been marked by allegations of corruption, encroachment, and land grabbing. The case is cited as a prime example in the policy justifications for the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which aims to reform the system by introducing greater transparency, centralized registration, and an appellate mechanism to the High Courts.

For legal professionals, the Kerala High Court's decision offers a robust framework for challenging arbitrary actions by Waqf Boards. Key takeaways include: - Scrutinize the Deed: The substance of a document, not its title, determines its legal character as a gift or a waqf. - Leverage Delay and Laches: Unexplained and inordinate delays in asserting a waqf claim can be a fatal flaw. - Insist on Procedural Compliance: Failure to follow statutory mandates for survey, inquiry, and notification can invalidate a waqf declaration. - Invoke Constitutional Rights: Arbitrary declarations that affect vested property rights can be challenged as violations of Articles 19, 21, and 300A. - Affirm Judicial Review: The writ jurisdiction of High Courts remains a potent remedy against unreasonable actions by statutory bodies, even where alternative forums exist.

By reining in the "unaccounted power" of the Waqf Board and championing the rights of bona fide property owners, the Kerala High Court has not only provided relief to hundreds of families but has also reinforced foundational principles of justice, fairness, and constitutional governance.