Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court (Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M.) allowed the State Government’s writ appeals, setting aside the Single Bench judgment that had quashed the 2024 notification constituting a one-member Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice (Retd.) C.N. Ramachandran Nair under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
The Division Bench upheld the State’s power to inquire into disputes concerning property declared as waqf by the Kerala Waqf Board, holding that the Board’s 2019 notification declaring the Vadakkekara property as waqf was “nothing less than a land-grabbing tactic” that could not oust the State’s jurisdiction.
The Court observed that the 1950 “endowment deed” was in substance a gift deed rather than a waqf, and therefore, the State Government retained its statutory authority under Section 97 of the Waqf Act, 1995 to issue directions and constitute an inquiry in public interest.
Facts
An extent of about 404 acres of land in Survey No. 18/1, Vadakkekara Village, was endowed in 1950 by Mohammed Siddique Sait to the Farook College Management Committee (R5). Over time, erosion left about 135 acres habitable.
Disputes arose between the College Management and local Kudikidappukars (landless occupants), culminating in a 1971 injunction decree confirmed by the High Court in 1975. Decades later, after commercial activity flourished on the land, the Kerala Waqf Board (KWB)—relying on a 2009 report of a prior Commission (Justice M.A. Nissar)—declared the land as waqf property in 2019 and registered it as Mohammed Siddique Sait Waqf No. 9980/RA.
This triggered protests by hundreds of purchasers and occupants who had acquired plots between 1960 and 2010. The State, citing law-and-order concerns, constituted the 2024 Commission to “identify the present nature and extent of the property” and “recommend measures to protect bona fide occupants.”
A Single Bench quashed the notification, holding that once the land was declared waqf, only the Waqf Tribunal had jurisdiction. The State appealed.
Issues
- Whether the petitioners before the Single Bench had locus standi to challenge the Commission’s constitution.
- Whether the 1950 endowment deed created a waqf or a gift.
- Whether declaration of the property as waqf ousted the State’s powers or writ jurisdiction.
- Scope of the State’s authority under Section 97 of the Waqf Act, 1995.
- Effect of recent amendments to the Waqf Act through the Unified Waqf Empowerment Act 2025.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The writ petitioners contended that once a property is declared waqf, the principle of “once a waqf, always a waqf” applies; the State loses competence to interfere. They asserted that the 1950 instrument was explicitly titled “waqf endowment,” that alienations made by the College were void, and that under the Supreme Court ruling in Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari (2022) 4 SCC 414, only the Waqf Tribunal could determine such disputes. The State’s use of the Commissions of Inquiry Act was thus ultra vires.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State, supported by the Farook College Management and third-party purchasers, maintained that the Single Bench’s approach was “cosmetic and superficial.” The Advocate General argued that the 2019 waqf declaration was unilateral, issued seventy years after the 1950 gift, without any statutory survey or quasi-judicial inquiry.
The State invoked Section 97 of the 1995 Act, empowering it to issue directions to protect affected citizens, asserting that the Commission was meant only to gather facts and propose remedies amid escalating public unrest.
Farook College Management emphasized that the deed allowed alienation of property for educational purposes, negating “permanent dedication.” The so-called waqf was a later fabrication, and the Board had acted as a “sheer land-grabber eyeing property of immense commercial value.”
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined successive definitions of waqf under the Mussalman Waqf Act 1923, Waqf Act 1954, and Waqf Act 1995, each emphasizing “permanent dedication” of property for religious or charitable purposes.
Drawing from Justice S.I. Jaffrey’s Waqf Laws in India (2015), the Court noted that a waqf requires the donor to completely divest ownership and vest it “in God Almighty,” unlike a public charitable trust where ownership remains with trustees.
Relying on Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs v. Yusuf Bhai Chawla (2012) 6 SCC 328, it reiterated that a waqf cannot exist if the deed permits transfer or sale; such power of alienation contradicts “permanence.”
Hence, the 1950 instrument—granting the donee authority to sell or lease for educational use—could not constitute a waqf. It was, in essence, a gift deed for public charitable purposes, not a religious dedication.
Precedent Analysis
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. State Waqf Board (2022) 20 SCC 383 – held that unilateral waqf declarations without statutory procedure or hearing are invalid; relied upon to show the Board’s 2019 action was procedurally defective.
- Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal (2017) 13 SCC 174 – emphasized that documentary intent governs; a mere title “waqf” does not make an instrument a waqf deed.
- Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari (2022) 4 SCC 414 – cited by petitioners for Tribunal exclusivity; distinguished by the Court because that case presupposed an undisputed waqf, whereas here the very existence of waqf was contested.
- Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee v. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) 16 SCC 264 – applied to hold that without “permanent dedication,” a waqf cannot come into existence.
The Bench also referred to Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India (2004) 3 SCC 363 and Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal (2002) 1 SCC 33 to reject locus standi of proxy litigants.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the writ petitioners lacked locus standi, observing:
“They masquerade as public-spirited citizens but have shown no personal injury or legal right infringed. Busy-bodies and officious interveners cannot hijack public law remedies.”
On merits, the Bench held that the Waqf Board’s 2019 declaration was ultra vires the Waqf Acts of 1954 and 1995, lacking any prior survey or notice to stakeholders. The State Government, therefore, was not bound by it.
The Court emphasized that the State cannot abdicate responsibility when livelihoods of hundreds are threatened by a defective declaration. Citing Section 97 of the 1995 Act, it ruled that the State’s supervisory power survives even over religious boards:
“The Government is not bound by an eye-wash declaration painting private land as waqf property; its duty to maintain peace and protect bona fide citizens is paramount.”
The Bench further noted that recent Supreme Court orders in Re: Waqf Amendment Act 2025 upheld deletion of Section 108 (which earlier gave overriding effect to the Waqf Act). Consequently, waqf declarations no longer override other statutes, reinforcing the State’s competence to act.
Conclusion
The Division Bench set aside the Single Bench judgment, restored the 2024 notification, and allowed the Commission of Inquiry to proceed.
The Court held that the 1950 deed was a gift deed, the 2019 waqf declaration was invalid, and the State was justified in initiating an inquiry to protect public interest and communal harmony.
In a strongly worded observation, the Bench remarked:
“This is nothing less than a land-grabbing tactic masquerading as religious dedication. The Government cannot remain a silent spectator when the livelihood of citizens is imperiled by an act without legal sanctity.”
Implications
The ruling re-balances power between the State Government and the Waqf Board, reaffirming the State’s authority to intervene when declarations threaten property rights and public order. It narrows the scope of automatic immunity once enjoyed by waqf notifications and sets a precedent that procedural compliance and genuine dedication are prerequisites for valid waqf registration.
The judgment also underscores that locus standi principles apply strictly even in religious-property litigation—public-interest cloaks cannot shield proxy litigations.
FAQs
1. Does the Kerala High Court’s decision mean Waqf Boards cannot declare property as waqf?
No. The ruling only requires that such declarations follow statutory procedure, including notice, survey, and hearing of affected parties. Unilateral or belated declarations are void.
2. Can the State Government inquire into waqf matters under Section 97 of the Waqf Act?
Yes. The Court affirmed that Section 97 empowers the State to issue directions and constitute inquiries when public interest or law and order are involved.
3. What happens to bona fide purchasers of waqf-declared land?
The judgment protects their rights, holding that where sale precedes an invalid declaration, such owners cannot be dispossessed without due process.
