In a landmark ruling handed down on 10 October, a division bench of the Kerala High Court declared that the Kerala Waqf Board’s decision to classify the contested Munambam land as a waqf property was “bad in law” and amounted to a “land-grabbing tactic.”

The Bench, comprising Justices S. A. Dharmadhikari and V. M. Syam Kumar, also overturned a Single Bench order from March of this year. That Single Bench had quashed the Kerala government’s earlier decision to form an inquiry commission to examine the rights of about 600 families threatened with eviction. The commission had been formed under that government order to investigate claims over the disputed land.

Originally, the Single Bench—led by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas—held that the commission, headed by retired Justice C. N. Ramachandran Nair and appointed in November 2024, did not have authority to intervene in matters already decided or pending before the Waqf Board under the Waqf Act, 1995. But the Division Bench found fault not just with that judgment, but also with the very locus of the petitioners who approached the court. In its words: “The original writ petitioners do not possess the locus standi to have instituted the writ petition before the Single Bench, which clearly ought not to have been entertained at their instance.”

The heart of the dispute lies in about 404 acres of coastal land in Munambam, Ernakulam district, Kerala. This land is home to roughly 600 families—mostly Christians from the Latin Catholic community, and Hindus from backward sections—who have lived there for many decades. In 2019, the Waqf Board declared this land as waqf property, citing a 1950 waqf deed by Mohammed Siddeeq Sait, which purportedly dedicated the land to the management of Farook College, Kozhikode. But the residents challenged this, stating they held legal right to the land—having purchased it long ago from Farook College, which originally held its management.

Declaration of Waqf Was Sham, High Court Finds

The Division Bench did not hold back in its criticism. It said the Waqf Board’s 2019 declaration was a “complete sham,” made after unreasonable delay, and in violation of multiple statutes. “…we would hold that the declaration by the KWB in May 2019 of the property as a waqf is a complete sham,” the High Court pronounced.

Though it noted that it would not formally quash those Waqf Board orders (because the appeal before it concerned only the state government’s decision), the Court made its position clear. The verdict declared that the actions were unenforceable, on the grounds that they were issued in violation of the Waqf Acts of 1954, 1984, and 1995, and that the delay—after nearly 69 years—robs the declaration of legitimacy. “The action of the KWB of declaring/ registering the subject property as a waqf property … is bad in law … and resultantly non-enforceable,” said the judgment. The Court explicitly refrained from formally nullifying them in that moment: “we restrain ourselves from issuing a formal order of quashing them … since the purpose … is just to hold that the State Government is not bound by such … declaration … after 7 decades (69 years).”

Waqf Board’s Move Called Land-Grab that Threatened Livelihoods

The High Court described the Waqf Board’s maneuver as a deliberate “land-grabbing tactic,” one that gravely affected the livelihood of hundreds of families. “We shall be holding that the notification dated 25.09.2019 notifying the subject property as waqf is ultra vires … and nothing less than a land grabbing tactics of KWB which has affected the bread and butter, livelihood of hundreds of families and bonafide occupants…” the judgment reads.

It further observed: “The manner in which the KWB has acted is nothing more than land-grabbing tactics after almost 7 decades, affecting fundamental rights, and the livelihood of hundreds of helpless citizens … who have been left with no choice, but to come down on the roads to launch protests, stage dharnas and agitations.” The Court added that the Waqf Board showed a “reckless disregard” for not only the statutes, but also the fundamental rights of citizens dependent on land they acquired in good faith.

The 1950 Deed Was a Gift, Not a Waqf, Says HC

On close review of the 1950 waqf deed, the Division Bench found that the document was never meant to operate as a waqf deed. Instead, it was a simple gift deed, without any intention of a “permanent dedication … in the favour of the Almighty God.” The court held: “The endowment deed of 1950 never intended to create any ‘permanent dedication in favour of the Almighty God’, but was simpliciter a gift deed in favour of the Farooq Management and therefore could have never qualified as a ‘waqf deed’ under any of the enactments of the Waqf Act 1954, 1984, or 1995.”

In its analysis, the High Court emphasized how waqf character is lost if property is transferred or alienated. The reasoning is that for any deed to be a waqf deed, a “permanent dedication” must be present. “Permanent dedication” means that the donor must create an inalienable, non-reversionary interest in favour of the donee, so the property is used for religious, pious or charitable purposes forever. As the court put it: “In all the enactments, the common feature about the definition of ‘waqf’ has been that there must be ‘permanent dedication’ by a person professing Islam of the property to be treated as waqf. ‘Permanent dedication’ implies creation of an absolute inalienable interest which is non-reversionary in nature … so that the property may be utilised exclusively for the purposes religious, pious or charitable in nature.”

The court further noted that the essence of a waqf deed lies in that permanent dedication. Without it, even a document calling itself an endowment cannot achieve the legal attributes of waqf. “It is an essential facet … that a waqf must be created having the facets of ‘permanent dedication’ … in the absence of which it doesn’t achieve the attributes of waqf,” the bench explained.

Perhaps most tellingly, the 1950 deed gave Farook College management rights to sell, lease or otherwise transfer the property for educational or charitable purposes. The deed even allowed reversion to the donor or successors if portions remained unused. The Court remarked: “… the element of ‘permanent dedication’ was never reflected in the said endowment deed, wherein the beneficiary was not only entitled to sell the property, but also utilise the sale proceeds for themselves and there was a specific provision of reversion of the property to the donor or his successor in case any portion of the property still remains.” They concluded: “Thus … there was a clear absence of permanent dedication … we deem to attribute it to the character of a gift deed and not a waqf deed.”

Historic Roots: How This Dispute Began

The conflict over the Munambam land stretches back many decades. In 1902, the Travancore royal family leased a parcel to trader Abdul Sathar Moosa Sait. Later, in 1950, his son-in-law Mohammed Siddeeq Sait recorded a deed that purported to dedicate the land to the president of Farook College’s management committee. That deed stated that the land would be used for charitable and educational purposes under Islamic law.

Over time, the Farook College management sought to evict families who had lived there for generations, though they lacked formal legal title. To settle, the college began to sell land parcels to these occupants—but without clearly disclosing whether the land was waqf property. The college relied on the 1950 deed to support its claims. The Kerala Waqf Board later contested these sales, asserting that the land was waqf property and that the sales—done without the Board’s approval—were illegal.

In 2009, the Nissar Commission (appointed by a CPI(M)-led government) declared that Munambam land was waqf property. It held that the sales made by Farook College were unauthorized, and recommended that the sold land be recovered. A decade later, in 2019, the Kerala Waqf Board acted on that commission’s report. It suo motu declared the land as waqf property under Sections 40 and 41 of the Waqf Act, 1995, and ordered that the Revenue Department stop collecting land taxes from the residents—effectively undermining their claims of ownership.

In 2022, the Kerala government rejected the Waqf Board’s directive, but the Board challenged that step in the High Court. The court stayed the government’s action, leaving the families in a legal limbo. Over time, erosion also reduced the original land area of around 404 acres to about 135 acres.

A judicial commission headed by retired Justice C. N. Ramachandran Nair, appointed in November 2024, is expected to deliver a report soon. This commission has signaled support for safeguarding the revenue rights of the residents and suggested that the state may consider acquiring the land if relocation is impractical.

Political Storm Surrounding Munambam

The Munambam land dispute did not remain legal—it rapidly entered the political arena. When the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2025 was introduced in Parliament, it became a flashpoint. The Bill had potential to challenge the Waqf Board’s claims on the land of 600 Christian families in Munambam.

The lone BJP Member of Parliament from Kerala, Suresh Gopi, publicly supported the Bill, claiming it would protect the Christian residents of Munambam. Meanwhile, the Congress party faced a stalemate: it had opposed the Bill to retain Muslim support (especially from its ally IUML), but risked alienating Christian voters. Christians make up about 18.4% of Kerala’s population and have traditionally supported the Congress. To stop the voter drift, Congress declared that Munambam was not waqf land—but this did not fully win back Christian support. Many shifted allegiance toward BJP, which eventually won its first Lok Sabha seat in Kerala, aided in part by the dissatisfaction over Munambam.