“STATE OUGHT TO HAVE APPEALED THE ORDER”: SUPREME COURT STAYS KERALA HIGH COURT RULING DECLARING MUNAMBAM LAND AS NON-WAQF:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the Kerala High Court’s declaration that the Munambam property is not Waqf land and directed that the status quo with respect to the property be maintained. The order was passed while issuing notice in a Special Leave Petition filed by the Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedi, which has challenged the High Court’s verdict holding that the Munambam land does not qualify as Waqf property under the Waqf Act, 1995. The Bench, comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, observed that the matter required closer consideration and accordingly stayed the operative declaration made by the High Court pending further hearing.

The petition before the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the Kerala High Court which had conclusively ruled on the nature of the Munambam land, despite the limited scope of the writ proceedings before it. The petitioner contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by examining the validity of the Waqf deed and finally determining the status of the land, even though such questions are statutorily reserved for adjudication by the Waqf Tribunal. It was argued that proceedings concerning the validity of the Waqf notification were already pending before the Tribunal, and therefore the High Court’s intervention effectively pre-empted the statutory forum.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the original writ petition had only challenged the State Government’s decision to constitute a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. According to the petitioner, once the property had been notified as Waqf, the jurisdiction to determine disputes relating to its nature lay exclusively with the Waqf Tribunal by virtue of Sections 7, 83, and 85 of the Waqf Act. By entering into the merits of the Waqf deed and declaring the land to be a gift rather than a Waqf, the High Court had placed the petitioner in a position worse than before, as even the Tribunal proceedings were rendered ineffective.

The State of Kerala, however, maintained that the proceedings before the High Court had been initiated in the nature of public interest litigation and not at the instance of a muttawalli or a direct stakeholder claiming management rights over the property. It was contended that the petitioner had approached the court in a representative capacity as a member of the public, and therefore the High Court was justified in examining the broader legality of the Waqf declaration. This submission was countered by the petitioner, who clarified that he was not the PIL petitioner and that his locus had already been recognised by the Single Judge on the ground that Waqf property involves representative public interest.

The Bench expressed concern over the High Court’s approach, noting that the writ court may have gone beyond what was strictly necessary for deciding the challenge to the inquiry commission. It observed that the High Court could have confined itself to setting aside the Single Judge’s order without conclusively determining the nature of the property. The Court also noted that the State Government ought to have independently challenged the impugned findings, as the declaration had wider legal consequences and had the effect of rendering pending proceedings redundant.

Counsel appearing for the residents of the land highlighted that the occupants were bona fide purchasers, many of whom were fishermen who had constructed homes on the property decades earlier. It was pointed out that the original deed dated back to 1950, whereas the Waqf notification was issued only in 2019, leading to prolonged disputes and protests by local inhabitants.

The dispute traces back to a 2024 notification issued under the Commissions of Inquiry Act to examine issues relating to land situated in Vadakkekara village. While the Single Bench of the High Court had quashed the notification on the ground that the property had already been declared as Waqf, the Division Bench went further to hold that the land itself was not Waqf property. The Supreme Court has now stayed that declaration, keeping all issues open for further consideration.