Munambam: issues arising from the High Court verdict

The Kerala High Court’s verdict on October 10 regarding the Munambam Waqf land issue mainly upheld the validity of the C.N. Ramachandran Nair Commission, which was appointed by the state government to study the matter. The court’s decision allows the commission to continue its work, taking the long-pending dispute to a new stage. The verdict of the division bench comprising Justices Sushrut Aravind Dharmadhikari and V.M. Syam Kumar came in response to an appeal filed by the Kerala government. The appeal challenged a single-bench judgment issued in last March which had held the appointment of the commission null holding that appointing a commission to overturn the Waqf Tribunal’s decision on the Waqf property was invalid.

Also read: Munambam is local issue, Waqf Bill affects all Muslims: Christians question CBCI support

Although the division bench stopped short of overturning the Waqf Board’s order declaring the Munambam land as Waqf property, it upheld the government’s appointment of the commission, providing explanations and citing supporting evidence. However, the court’s observations — which may have wider implications than the decision per se— contain both favorable and unfavorable elements for the parties involved, including the landowners and the Waqf Board. Notably, while the court stated that ownership of the land should be determined only after verifying and fulfilling all legal requirements, it also made certain remarks suggesting that the Waqf Board could be viewed as a land-grabber. Naturally, as per reports surfacing, the Board may go in appeal against the verdict, including a prayer to get thoseseeking to have these remarks expunged on the grounds that they undermine its dignity and legal standing. If left unchallenged, the High Court’s observations could lead to a perception that may affect how the Waqf Board is viewed when carrying out its legally mandated responsibilities.

Also read: Minister urges people of Munambam to be aware of BJP’s 'divisive tactics'

The Division Bench held that the 404 acres of land in the Munambam area, gifted to the management of Farookq College in Kochi in 1950 by Mohammed Siddique Sait of Kochi, constituted a simple donation as per the deed of transfer; it did not carry the characteristics of a waqf donation and, therefore, could not be classified as waqf property. And the court arrived at the conclusion that given the nature of the transfer, the Farook College management subsequently sold portions of the land to various individuals, who used it for residential and commercial purposes. As a corollary, the court ruled that the land rightfully belonged to the individuals and organizations that had legally purchased it and paid property taxes over the years. The verdict also noted that while Siddique Sait’s deed of donation contains certain expressions suggesting it was a waqf donation, its overall content and the autonomy granted to Farook College in managing and transacting the land imply otherwise. Therefore, the court decided that the Munambam land must be regarded as a simple donation as per the provisions of the Waqf Acts of 1923, 1954, and 1995. It rejected the argument that the land constituted a permanent religious endowment that could not be transferred, despite such references appearing in the deed. The judgment further observed that the Nissar Commission was appointed by the state government in 2008, long after many of the landowners had occupied the land for decades, constructed homes and businesses, and paid taxes. And it was only in 2019, long after the Nissar Commission recommendations that the Waqf Board declared the land as waqf property in 2019.

Also read: Munambam residents shout ‘Modi Zindabad’ for Waqf Bill, but it has no retrospective provision

Since the issues examined by the High Court Division Bench pertain to legal questions, any further observations should ideally come from appropriate forums or competent authorities. However, one thing stands out in this context: several remarks made in the judgment appear to suggest that the Kerala Waqf Board had attempted to grab the land without legal basis and this raises concerns. While the delay in declaring the disputed property as Waqf land and the failure to involve all parties affected by its legal status can be reasonably criticized, it must also be acknowledged that the Board did not act in an arbitrary manner such as declaring as its hundreds of acres overnight. The dispute concerns land that is claimed to have the characteristics of Waqf property, supported by certain historical documents from the time of its transfer. Moreover, the observation that "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" is viewed as derogatory toward a statutory body like the Waqf Board. The takeaway from the verdict is that even as the judiciary has the authority to assess the actions and decisions of statutory institutions, it has become imperative to safeguard their dignity and credibility of such bodies.

Also read: Munambam no Muslim-Christian issue; need swift resolution: Tharoor