Munambam Waqf Dispute: "Will Temporarily Protect Land Owners From Dispossession": Kerala HC Says In Plea Challenging Provisions Of Waqf Act
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (10th December) orally remarked that it could give interim protection from dispossession to the residents of disputed Waqf land at Kochi's Munambam. The development comes in a petition filed by persons claiming that their predecessors had bought the disputed land in Munambam from Farook College. The property was enlisted in the Waqf registry in 2019, saying...
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (10th December) orally remarked that it could give interim protection from dispossession to the residents of disputed Waqf land at Kochi's Munambam.
The development comes in a petition filed by persons claiming that their predecessors had bought the disputed land in Munambam from Farook College. The property was enlisted in the Waqf registry in 2019, saying that the property was given to the college in 1950 as Waqf. Since 2020, the residents of this area were not able to get RoR or mutation of properties from Kuzhuppily Village Office.
The petitioners had challenged the constitutionality of the Waqf Act, 1995. The petitioner urged that Waqf property cannot be granted special status and be exempted from law of limitation.
They argued that other enactments which govern the trust and religious endowments of all other communities namely Religious Endowment Act, indian Trustees Act, Indian Trusts Act, The Charitable Endowment Act, the Official Trustees Act, The Charitable and Religious Act are governed by provisions of limitation.
However, the petitioner argued that as per Section 107 of the Waqf Act, a waqf property can be recovered even after many years. They argued that this is discriminatory. They also submitted that the Waqf Act does not have a provision to give an opportunity to parties having claim or title of the property before claiming them as waqf property. The petitioners argued that arbitrary unguided and unchecked powers are given to the Waqf Board.
Observing that it is "essentially a property dispute" involving disputed facts, a Division Bench of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K. V. Jayakumar orally observed it can grant a stay of dispossession till the Petitioners file a civil suit or obtain an interim stay from a civil court. The Court however did not pass any orders.
The matter is next posted on 17th December.
The plea is moved by Advocates K. S. Bharathan, Aadithyan S. Mannali, Aleena Sony
Case Title: Joseph Benny and Others v Union of India and Others
Case No: WP(C) 20086 of 2024