Dark Mode
Image
Logo
Kerala HC Considers Granting Interim Protection to Residents on Disputed Waqf Land in Munambam, Kochi

Kerala HC Considers Granting Interim Protection to Residents on Disputed Waqf Land in Munambam, Kochi

The Kerala High Court, on December 10, 2024, orally indicated the possibility of granting interim protection from dispossession to the residents occupying disputed Waqf land in Munambam, Kochi. This came in response to a petition filed by individuals claiming their ancestors had purchased the contested land from Farook College. The property was listed in the Waqf registry in 2019, with the claim that it had been dedicated to Waqf by the college in 1950. Since 2020, residents have been unable to obtain records of rights or property mutations from the Kuzhuppily Village Office.

 

The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Waqf Act, 1995, arguing that Waqf property should not be granted special status exempting it from the law of limitation. They contended that other laws governing religious and charitable trusts, such as the Religious Endowment Act, Indian Trusts Act, and Charitable Endowment Act, are subject to limitations, unlike the Waqf Act, which allows property recovery even after many years under Section 107. The petitioners argued that this provision was discriminatory and lacked any provision for providing claimants a chance to contest the designation of property as Waqf. They further argued that the Waqf Board was granted arbitrary and unchecked powers.

 

The Division Bench of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K. V. Jayakumar noted that the matter concerns a property dispute with disputed facts. They orally observed that interim protection from dispossession could be granted until the petitioners file a civil suit or secure an interim stay from the civil court. However, no formal order was issued. The case is scheduled for hearing again on December 17, 2024.

 

 

Case Title: Joseph Benny and Others v Union of India and Others

Case No: WP(C) 20086 of 2024

Bench:Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K. V. Jayakumar

Comment / Reply From