Recently, the Kerala High Court addressed the ongoing dispute over the ownership of land in Munambam between the Waqf Board and individuals asserting ownership claims. The Court observed that such disputes require adjudication through a civil suit and emphasised the limited role of the High Court in resolving factual controversies. Highlighting the necessity for legal recourse, the Court remarked that an interim stay on dispossession notices would be provided to allow landowners time to initiate appropriate legal proceedings.
The controversy arose when the Waqf Board issued dispossession notices to approximately 600 parties who claimed to have purchased the disputed land from the Farook College committee before the enactment of the Waqf Act, 1995. The Board asserted ownership of the land, prompting the Revenue Department to deny the issuance of Records of Rights (RoR) and mutation of documents for the affected individuals. This situation led to widespread protests in Munambam, with political parties expressing divided opinions. Eight parties subsequently approached the High Court, challenging the constitutional validity of specific provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, which they argued unfairly prioritised Waqf properties over other religious and private properties.
The petitioners contended that certain provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, are unconstitutional and discriminatory as they accord preferential treatment to Waqf properties while denying similar protections to Trusts, Mutts, Akharas, and Societies. They argued that this contravenes Articles 14, 15, 25, 27, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The plea further asserted that the Act lacks safeguards to prevent arbitrary inclusion of non-Islamic religious and private properties in Waqf lists without due process, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The petitioners also claimed that the establishment of Waqf Tribunals under Section 83 of the Act is improper and beyond the constitutional scope of Article 323-A. They criticized the exemption of Waqf properties from the Limitation Act, which governs adverse possession and recovery of property, as discriminatory and unjust.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice KV Jayakumar, made significant observations during the hearing. The Court noted that the matter primarily involved a land ownership dispute, which required adjudication through a civil court rather than intervention by the High Court. Justice Rawal remarked, “You have to get a declaration that you are the owners. The High Court cannot decide a disputed question of fact. We can provide an interim stay, which will continue until a fresh interim stay is obtained in a civil suit”. The Court highlighted the limitations of its jurisdiction emphasising that resolving such disputes involves examining factual complexities, which is the domain of civil courts. Justice Rawal observed that petitioners challenging the validity of the Waqf Act or the actions of the Waqf Board must approach the appropriate forums to seek relief. Addressing the notices of dispossession issued by the Waqf Board, the Court assured the petitioners that their possession would be protected through an interim stay, stating, “We will protect you, but you must challenge the provisions as per the appropriate legal mechanism. The interim stay will remain in force until you file a civil suit and obtain further relief from the civil court”.
The Bench further observed that while the petitioners sought to question the validity of the Waqf Act and its provisions, such challenges should not circumvent established legal procedures. The Court underscored that individuals aggrieved by the actions of the Waqf Board must seek specific declarations of ownership through civil suits and obtain necessary relief as per law. Additionally, the Court criticized any attempts to misuse judicial processes for convenience, asserting that challenges to the Waqf Act and related actions should be pursued diligently within the framework of the law.
The High Court granted an interim stay on the dispossession notices issued by the Waqf Board, allowing the petitioner time to initiate a civil suit. The Court deferred issuing a final order during the hearing and emphasised that the petitioners must pursue their grievances through proper legal channels.
Picture Source :
