Kerala High Court stays order quashing state's panel on Munambam waqf land row

The Kerala High Court on Monday stayed an earlier single-judge order that quashed the state government’s appointment of a judicial commission to look into the eviction crisis brewing at Munambam, a region in northern Kochi, occupied mostly by fishermen community. At the heart of the dispute is a site that the Kerala Waqf Board claims is waqf land, a classification that threatens the housing security of nearly 600 families.

A Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu passed the stay while hearing an appeal filed by the State against the March 17 order of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas. The single judge had ruled that the state had no authority to appoint a commission to probe matters already governed by the Waqf Act.

The case concerns a stretch of land in Munambam that originally spanned over 400 acres but has been reduced to about 135 acres due to sea erosion. In 1950, the property was gifted by a man named Siddique Sait to Farook College. However, the land was already occupied by several families, leading to prolonged legal tussles between the college and the residents.

Over the years, the college sold parts of the land to some of these occupants. But these transactions did not disclose that the land was waqf property. In 2019, the Kerala Waqf Board formally registered the land as waqf, effectively rendering the earlier sales invalid. Residents have opposed the classification and are now facing possible eviction.

Amid the growing protests, the Kerala government, in November 2024, appointed a judicial commission led by former High Court judge, Justice CN Ramachandran Nair, to examine the rights of the affected families and suggest solutions.

However, this move was challenged by members of the Waqf Samrakshana Samithi (Protection Committee), who argued that the government lacked jurisdiction over waqf matters. The single-judge Bench had agreed, stating that any adjudication must happen before a Waqf Tribunal and that the Commission’s appointment had no legal basis.

Challenging the ruling, the state told the High Court that the petitioners had no locus standi (right to appear) and that the single judge had failed to appreciate the complexities of the situation and the humanitarian angle.