“‘Commission’s Report Not to Be Acted Upon Without Leave’: Kerala High Court Stays Quashing of Inquiry in Munambam Land Dispute”
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu stayed the operation of a single-judge decision that had quashed the State Government’s notification appointing a Commission of Inquiry. The Court held that the State had exercised statutory powers under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and made out a prima facie case. The Bench directed that the Commission may continue its inquiry and submit its report, but the report shall not be acted upon by the State without prior leave of the Court pending final disposal of the appeals.
The dispute concerns a government notification dated 27 November 2024, issued under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, by which the State of Kerala appointed a retired High Court judge to head a Commission of Inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry was to examine ongoing disputes between residents of Munambam in Ernakulam District and the Kerala State Waqf Board. The Commission was tasked with identifying the lie, nature, and extent of property described under old Survey No.18/1 and recommending measures to protect the rights of bona fide occupants.
Following this, two writ petitions were filed—one by Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi, Thrikkakara, and another by individuals claiming interest in Waqf properties. The petitioners sought to quash the notification, asserting that the Commission’s formation was arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and encroached upon the exclusive domain of authorities under the Waqf Act, 1995.
The State contested the locus standi of the petitioners, asserting that they were neither beneficiaries under Section 3(a) nor “persons interested” as defined under Section 3(k) of the Waqf Act. It contended that the petitions effectively amounted to Public Interest Litigations and that the Commission was a fact-finding body created in response to public protests. The State maintained that no rights were violated by the mere existence of the Commission.
Additional respondents claiming legal ownership over the property were impleaded by court order dated 6 February 2025. They too contested the petitioners’ standing and disputed the Waqf character of the land.
On 17 March 2025, the learned Single Judge held that the petitioners had locus standi and concluded that the notification was issued mechanically and without application of mind. It was quashed on these grounds. Aggrieved, the State filed appeals before the Division Bench, which heard both matters together.
At the interim hearing stage, the State sought permission for the Commission to continue functioning until the appeal's resolution, citing urgency due to the limited tenure of the Commission, set to expire in May 2025.
The Division Bench observed that the State had made out a prima facie case in support of its exercise of statutory powers. On the issue of jurisdiction, the Court recorded in italics: “The Act 60 of 1952 empowers the State Government to appoint a Commission when it is of the opinion that such appointment is necessary or expedient in the public interest.”
Regarding the Single Judge’s finding that the notification suffered from non-application of mind, the Division Bench stated: “The decision taken by the Government to issue Exhibit-P1 Notification thus is an exercise of the power conferred by a statute, Act 60 of 1952, duly enacted by the Legislature.”
The Court addressed the nature of the Commission’s role by recording: “This Commission would function as an advisory body; its report is not binding or conclusive.” It also noted: “The enquiry conducted by the Commission, by itself, will neither determine the legal rights of the concerned parties nor encroach upon the jurisdiction of the adjudicatory mechanism under the Waqf Act.”
The Court further stated: “Any judge trained in law is expected to understand the limits of the commission of inquiry and its observations, and the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal.”
On the procedural distinction between public interest litigation and civil writ petitions, the Bench remarked: “The distinction between a Civil Writ Petition and a Public Interest Litigation with reference to the Roster is not merely a matter of procedure.” Citing a Supreme Court precedent, the Court recorded: “The adjudication beyond allocation is void and has to be considered a nullity.”
Addressing arguments regarding the Notification’s lack of reasons, the Court stated: “Section 3 of Act 60 of 1952 does not mandate a duty to provide for reasons in the Notification, akin to a judgment.”
The Court rejected the finding that the notification should be set aside for omitting references to the Waqf Act, noting: “This argument and the finding are contradicted by the finding in the impugned judgment that the terms of reference do not enable the Commission to decide any question whether the property is Waqf property or not.”
On the issue of urgency, the Court recorded: “If the Commission is not allowed to function in the meantime, and the Appellant – State eventually succeeds, it will be difficult for the Commission to restart its work as the interruption may affect the completion of the Commission’s mandate within the time available.”
The Appeals are admitted. List the Appeals for hearing on the Daily Board on 16 June 2025.
During the pendency of these Appeals, the operation and implementation of the judgment dated 17 March 2025 in W.P.(C) Nos.2839 of 2025 and 3817 of 2025, quashing Exhibit-P1 notification/order dated 27 November 2024, is stayed.
The report to be submitted by the Commission constituted under Exhibit-P1 notification, in accordance with its terms of reference, will not be acted upon by the State Government without seeking leave of this Court in these appeals.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Advocate General K. Gopalakrishna Kurup; Special Government Pleaders V. Manu, C.E. Unnikrishnan, M.H. Hanilkumar; Senior Government Pleader S. Kannan
For the Respondents: P.K. Ibrahim, K.P. Ambika, Zeenath P.K., Jabeena K.M., Anaz Bin Ibrahim, Pradeep Kumar A , Senior Advocate George Poonthottam
Case Title: State of Kerala v. T.K.I. Ahamed Sherief & Others
Case Number: WA No. 603 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu
[Read/Download order]
