DATE: 10/10/2025
COURT: High Court of Kerala
BENCH: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
and Justice Syam Kumar V.M
FACTS:
The case revolves around the long-standing
dispute concerning a 404.76-acre property in the erstwhile Travancore State,
originally transferred in 1950 through an endowment deed executed by Mohammed
Siddique Sait in favour of the R5 Farooq Management. While the petitioners
contended that the deed constituted a waqf endowment, the State and R5 treated
it as a gift deed. Over time, a significant portion of the land was lost due to
sea erosion, leaving only 135.11 acres. Disputes subsequently arose between R5
Farooq Management and local occupants (Kudikidappukars) who claimed traditional
rights over the land. Earlier civil litigation culminated in a 1975 Kerala High
Court decision affirming R5 Farooq Management’s possession. From the 1960s
onward, parts of the property were sold to third parties, leading to the
establishment of several businesses and residential settlements, forming a
large community dependent on the land.
The controversy was reignited when the
Kerala State Waqf Board (KWB), acting on recommendations from a 2008 Commission
report, declared and registered the property as waqf land in 2019, almost seven
decades after the 1950 deed. This declaration halted tax collection and
triggered eviction attempts, sparking mass protests by residents and business
owners. The Government of Kerala, responding to the ensuing public unrest and
potential communal tension, constituted an Inquiry Commission (IC) in 2024
under retired Justice C.N. Ramachandran Nair to identify the extent of the land
and protect the rights of bona fide occupants. However, the constitution of the
IC was challenged through writ petitions, leading to a Single Bench quashing
the notification as contrary to the Waqf Act, 1995. In the present writ
appeals, the Court noted the four-sided conflict involving the State, the Waqf
Board, R5 Farooq Management, and bona fide purchasers, and observed prima facie
that the 2019 declaration of the property as waqf was legally unsustainable and
could not prevent the State from forming the Commission in the larger public
interest.
ISSUES:
The primary issues before the Kerala High
Court were whether the Kerala State Waqf Board (KWB) was justified in declaring
and registering the 404.76-acre property as a waqf property nearly seven
decades after the 1950 endowment deed, and whether the Government of Kerala
could lawfully constitute an Inquiry Commission (IC) to examine the rights and
interests of bona fide occupants of the said land. The Court was also tasked
with determining whether the endowment deed of 1950 amounted to a valid waqf
under the Waqf Acts or was merely a gift deed, and whether the KWB’s delayed
action violated statutory provisions and principles of fairness,
reasonableness, and due process.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The High Court held that the Kerala State
Waqf Board’s declaration of the property as a waqf in 2019 was illegal,
arbitrary, and unenforceable, having been issued without proper inquiry and
after an unreasonable delay of 69 years. The Court affirmed that the 1950
endowment deed was a gift deed, not a waqf deed, and therefore the property
could not be classified as waqf land under any of the Waqf Acts of 1954, 1984,
or 1995. The Court upheld the State Government’s right to constitute the
Inquiry Commission in the larger public interest and directed it to proceed
based on the Commission’s report.
The Court reasoned that the KWB’s
declaration was a non-speaking and unilateral order, issued without involving
all interested and affected parties, and thus violated the principles of
natural justice. It observed that the Waqf Board had “woken from deep slumber”
after nearly seven decades to suddenly declare the land as waqf property, an
action that was arbitrary and appeared motivated by the land’s increased
commercial value rather than any genuine religious or charitable purpose. The
Court emphasized that the exercise of statutory power must be undertaken within
a reasonable timeframe and with adherence to procedural safeguards, which the
KWB had completely failed to observe. The Waqf Board’s inquiry lacked
transparency, fairness, and statutory basis, rendering the declaration legally
unsustainable.
The Court further noted that the 1950
endowment deed did not exhibit any intent to create a permanent dedication in favour
of Almighty God, an essential condition for constituting a waqf under Islamic
law and the relevant statutes. Instead, the deed transferred absolute ownership
and rights of sale to Farooq Management, thereby establishing it as a private
charitable trust rather than a religious endowment. The High Court held that
the nomenclature of a document alone cannot determine its legal character; its
substance and terms must be considered. It reiterated that the Writ Court has
the constitutional authority to examine whether a deed qualifies as a waqf and
to invalidate actions of statutory bodies that are arbitrary or unlawful, even
when alternate remedies exist. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the KWB’s
actions lacked bona fides and amounted to a misuse of statutory power,
justifying judicial interference to protect the rights of bona fide purchasers
and occupants.
ANALYSIS:
The Kerala High Court’s ruling in this case
underscores the judiciary’s role in preventing arbitrary and belated
administrative actions that threaten citizens’ property rights and public
order. The Court found that the Kerala State Waqf Board (KWB) had acted beyond
its statutory authority by declaring the 404.76-acre property as waqf land
almost 70 years after the original 1950 endowment deed, without proper inquiry
or due process. By characterizing the declaration as a “non-speaking,
unilateral” act, the Court highlighted the violation of natural justice and
statutory safeguards. It observed that such delayed and procedurally flawed
action not only contravened the Waqf Acts but also suggested an ulterior motive
linked to the property’s rising commercial value. The Court emphasized that
statutory powers, even when vested in an authority, must be exercised within a
reasonable time and in good faith. Thus, the Waqf Board’s belated exercise of
power was deemed a clear case of arbitrariness and abuse of authority,
amounting to an attempt to usurp land rights without legal justification.
At the same time, the Court upheld the
State Government’s constitution of the Inquiry Commission (IC) as a legitimate
step taken in the larger public interest to safeguard the rights of bona fide
purchasers and occupants who had settled on the land for decades. It observed
that the 1950 deed did not create a waqf, as it lacked the essential element of
permanent dedication to Almighty God, instead transferring full ownership to
Farooq Management. The Court further clarified that merely naming a document as
a “waqf endowment” does not make it one in law; its substance and intent are
decisive. The judgment thus reaffirms the principle that courts can intervene
to examine the legality and fairness of statutory actions even when alternative
remedies exist, particularly where administrative arbitrariness or violation of
fundamental rights is evident. Overall, the decision balances the protection of
genuine public and private interests while reinforcing the rule of law against
delayed, opaque, and self-serving exercises of power by public authorities.
info@adhwaitha.com