Munambam land issue: Kerala High Court quashes appointment of Ramachandran Nair commission

Kerala High Court quashes State government's appointment of inquiry commission, citing lack of consideration and legal restrictions.

The Kerala High Court on Monday (March 17) quashed the State government’s order appointing an inquiry commission headed by former High Court judge C.N. Ramachandran Nair in the Munambam land issue.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while allowing a writ petition filed by Kerala Waqf Land Samrakshana Vedi challenging the appointment of the inquiry commission, observed that as the issue is still pending before the Waqf Tribunal, even if the dispute creates any issues of public order, the recourse to the Provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act could not have been resorted to at this stage. As the relevant facts which ought to have been borne in mind while appointing a commission of inquiry were not considered by the government, the order appointing the commission of inquiry was issued without any application of mind. The government had submitted that the commission was appointed in view of the protests in Munambam over the land.

The court added that in the light of the “explicit restrictions” under the Waqf Act on any authority to consider any questions relating to the Waqf and that Waqf Board has already found the disputed property in Munambam to be Waqf, the commission of inquiry is stopped from consider the question. The finding of the commission may have the propensity to prejudice the right of the contesting parties before the Waqf tribunal. Even observations regarding the nature of occupation and the character of their occupation by the commission would even indirectly have a tendency to impede the fair consideration of issue by the tribunal.

The court noted that when the commission was appointed, the government had not considered the significance of the findings of the Waqf board and the provisions of the Waqf Act or the report of the commission appointed earlier.

The petitioner contended that the commission was appointed by the government without application of its mind. The petitioner pointed out that the land dedicated to the Waqk board cannot be alienated without the sanction of the Waqf board. The occupants of the land in Munambam were “rank trespassers.” If the commission after its inquiry came to the conclusion that the occupiers were bona-fide occupiers, such a report would be perverse. The State government had the power to issue directions in the interest of the Waqf board and the government cannot issue directions contrary to the Waqf deed and the procedure under the Waqf Act. In fact, the issues relating to Waqf could be resolved only under the provisions of the Waqf Act.

In fact, the State government has no power or authority to appoint a commission of inquiry again into a fact which had been found existing.