Waqf Overreach Under Court Scrutiny: Kerala HC Terms Munambam Land Claim “Land Grab”

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.

The judgment records that following the 1950 endowment, the Farook College management sold parcels of land between 1960 and 2010 to more than fifty third-party purchasers who established homes and businesses in the area. These developments, supported by municipal tax payments and possession records, had gone unchallenged for decades. It was only after a 2008 government-constituted Commission headed by former District Judge M.A. Nissar made certain recommendations, that the Kerala State Waqf Board in 2019 declared the land to be Waqf property and initiated eviction proceedings.

This prompted widespread protests and civil unrest among residents, leading to the formation of the 2024 Inquiry Commission to suggest a settlement framework.

On the legal submissions, the Court accepted the State's argument, presented by Advocate General K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, that the Board's declaration was “unilateral, procedurally flawed, and in violation of natural justice,” as no notice was given to affected residents.

The State contended that it was compelled to act due to widespread agitation and the need to prevent communal tensions. The Waqf Board, on the other hand, argued that once a property is declared Waqf, it retains that character in perpetuity, a position the Court rejected, noting that “mere nomenclature does not confer sanctity.”

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 references the recent Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which the Supreme Court allowed to operate pending constitutional challenge.

The amendments, inter alia, deleted the contentious “Waqf by user” clause and the overriding Section 108A, aiming to curb precisely the kind of unilateral declarations that led to the Munambam crisis.

While the High Court did not rule on the validity of these provisions, its reasoning aligns with the reformist intent of the 2025 amendments to restore balance between religious endowment and property rights.

By holding that private and charitable properties cannot be brought under Waqf control through retrospective notifications and by reaffirming that the State Government is “not bound” by such declarations, the Kerala High Court’s ruling sets a significant precedent. It reinforces constitutional property protections under Article 300A and limits the ability of statutory bodies to appropriate land without due process.

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

Bench: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M.

Date of Judgment: October 10, 2025