Munambam Waqf “Land Grab” issue reaches Supreme Court

An SLP has been filed before the Supreme Court against the Kerala High Court's verdict which held the Kerala State Waqf Board unilaterally notifying 404 acres of coastal land in Munambam, Ernakulam, as Waqf property as a “land-grabbing tactic”.

The petition has been filed by Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi. 

In a landmark decision that reasserts the limits of statutory power and property rights, the Kerala High Court came down heavily on the Kerala State Waqf Board for what it termed a “land-grabbing tactic” in unilaterally notifying 404 acres of coastal land in Munambam, Ernakulam, as Waqf property nearly seven decades after it was originally endowed for educational purposes.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that the Waqf Board's 2019 notification declaring the Munambam property as Waqf was ultra vires the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, as well as its predecessor statutes. The Court upheld the State Government's decision to appoint a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to examine the dispute and report on measures to protect the interests of bona fide landholders, observing that the government “is not bound by unilateral declarations of Waqf character” made by the Board in disregard of statutory procedure.

The Bench found that the Waqf Board's act of declaring the land as Waqf in 2019, long after its endowment by Mohammed Siddique Sait in 1950, amounted to “nothing less than a land-grabbing exercise under the guise of religious endowment.”

The Court restored the State Government's 2024 notification appointing a one-member inquiry headed by Justice (Retd.) C.N. Ramachandran Nair, which a Single Bench had earlier quashed. It further ruled that the State was within its powers under Section 97 of the Waqf Act, 1995 to issue directions and safeguard the interests of third-party purchasers and occupants whose livelihoods were imperiled by the Waqf Board's sudden assertion of ownership.

The Court traced the ownership and endowment history of the property to Document No. 2115 of 1950, an “endowment deed” executed by Mohammed Siddique Sait in favour of the Farook College Managing Committee for educational and charitable purposes. Although styled as a “Waqf endowment”, the Bench observed that the recitals and operative clauses of the deed clearly conferred upon the donee the right to own, transfer, and alienate portions of the property for educational purposes.

The High Court concluded that this feature negated any element of “permanent dedication”, which is a sine qua non for a valid Waqf under Islamic law. Citing the statutory definitions from the Mussalman Waqf Act, 1923, Waqf Act, 1954, and Central Waqf Act, 1995, the Bench held that the document was in substance a gift deed, not a Waqf deed, since it lacked the character of inalienability and permanent religious dedication.

Referring to key precedents, the Bench placed reliance on State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Waqf Board (2022) 20 SCC 383 and Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal (2017) 13 SCC 174, reiterating that any Waqf declaration made without due inquiry and participation of affected parties is invalid in law. The Court also invoked Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee v. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) 16 SCC 264, to hold that “without permanent dedication, no Waqf can come into existence.”

These authorities, the Bench said, affirm that statutory safeguards cannot be circumvented under the cloak of religious endowment. Beyond the legal findings, the judgment also casts a spotlight on the legislative trajectory that enabled such disputes. The Court's observations echo growing concerns over how successive amendments, starting with Rajiv Gandhi’s 1984 amendment, which granted Waqf Boards sole authority to decide what constitutes Waqf property; the 1995 Waqf Act under P.V. Narasimha Rao, which established exclusive tribunals and broadened Board jurisdiction and the 2013 amendment under the Manmohan Singh led UPA government, which empowered Boards to make suo-motu land claims and curtailed appellate remedies, cumulatively expanded the Board’s powers, often at the expense of civil and state authorities.

The Court's strong language, terming the Kerala Board’s actions as “a clear abuse of statutory authority”, appears to be a judicial rebuke to decades of unchecked statutory expansion. The judgment also referenced the recent Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which the Supreme Court allowed to operate pending constitutional challenge.

Case Title: Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi & Ors. vs.  State of Kerala