Munambam land dispute: Kerala HC Division Bench stays single judge order quashing Ramachandran Nair Commission

Kerala High Court Division Bench stays single judge's verdict on Munambam land issue, government appeal admitted for further hearing.

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Monday (April 7, 2025) stayed a single judge’s verdict quashing the Kerala government order appointing a commission headed by former High Court judge C.N. Ramachandran Nair on the Munambam land issue.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu passed the interim order while admitting an appeal filed by the Kerala government against the single judge’s order.

The Bench, while posting the appeal for further hearing on June 16, directed the Kerala government not to act upon the report to be submitted by the commission without the permission of the court during the pendency of the appeal.

When the appeal came up for hearing last week, Advocate General K. Gopalakrishna Kurup submitted that the single judge ought to have appreciated the fact that writ petitions filed by the Kerala Waqf Land Samrakshana Samithi and others are not maintainable. The petitioners, including the association, do not fall within the ambit of the definition of ‘beneficiary’ or the ‘person interested in a Waqf’, as is defined under the Waqf Act of 1995. They are no personally affected by the appointment of the commission. Neither the fundamental rights nor legal rights of the petitioners guaranteed under the Constitution have been directly or substantially infringed. Therefore, they have no locus standi to file a writ petition. In fact, the single judge ought to have dismissed it.

The government further contended in its appeal that the commission was only a fact-finding authority and that the report to be drawn up by the commission is only intended to furnish the government with material to act upon. The cause of action for the petitioners would arise only when the government takes a decision on the recommendations to be made by the commission. The ongoing dispute related to the property was a definite matter of public importance. The commission was appointed to find a permanent solution to the dispute, it was submitted.

The single judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the commission was required to inquire and make a report on the specific terms of reference and that it is neither a judicial nor a quasi-judicial inquiry. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the subject property is a Waqf property and that the documents under which the occupants claim are void, that by itself cannot take away the right of the government in taking steps to find out a solution to the problem/disputes. Neither the government nor the commission intends to usurp any of the functions of the court of law. That the proceedings against the Waqf Board’s decision on the Munambam land are pending before the Waqf Tribunal is not a ground to interfere with an order. The finding of the single judge that the government had acted mechanically and without proper application of mind in appointing the commission was made had no basis, it was submitted.