The Kerala High Court cleared the path for the state government’s inquiry into the long-standing Munambam land dispute, while observing that the petitioners challenging the commission were acting on behalf of “certain other interested parties with ulterior purposes”.
A division bench of Justices S.A. Dharmadhikari and Syam Kumar V.M. allowed two appeals filed by the state government, overturning a March 17 single-judge order that had quashed the appointment of an inquiry commission set up to resolve conflicts between around 600 residents and the Waqf Board.
The residents had protested over difficulties in paying land tax and registering mutations, claiming their predecessors purchased land from Farook College
The dispute traces back to 1950, when Siddhique Sait gifted the property to Farook College. Decades later, the Kerala Waqf Board classified the land as waqf property, invalidating previous sales and sparking opposition from residents.
The state government, in November 2024, appointed a commission headed by retired Justice C.N. Ramachandran Nair “to find a permanent solution” for bona fide occupants and third-party purchasers.
The High Court noted that the petitioners, Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi and others, failed to show how they were directly affected, questioning why they filed as “persons aggrieved” instead of pursuing a public interest petition.
“They slept till 2019 while third-party rights were being created,” the court observed, highlighting that the actual transferees, Farook College management, had consistently maintained that the 1950 deed was a simple gift, not a waqf deed.
The court concluded that the original petitioners were “masquerading the interests of invisible third parties”, attempting to claim the property from Farook Management. It further noted that the Kerala Waqf Board itself had not contested the legality of the government commission.
By dismissing the single-judge verdict, the High Court cleared the way for the inquiry commission to proceed, potentially paving the way for a resolution in the decades-long Munambam dispute, while reaffirming the legal principle that only those directly impacted can challenge the state government action.
