HC criticises govt. decision to appoint commission on Munambam land issue

The Kerala High Court on Friday asked how can the State government appoint a commission headed by former High Court Judge C.N. Ramachandran Nair to inquire into the Munambam land issue when a civil court had already decreed it to be a Waqf property and the High Court confirming the order later.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the oral observation when a writ petition filed by the Kerala Waqf Land Samrakshana Vedi challenging the appointment of the commission was taken up for hearing.

The court also orally observed that there was no proper application of mind while appointing the commission and it looked like an eyewash. The court said it could understand if the government order constituting the commission indicated that the commission would go into the issue of land in Munambam other than the 104 acres of Waqf land which had already been covered by the civil court and High Court orders.

“It is a settled proposition that once the title or right of a property is settled, no other court, including the High Court, can interfere with it,” the court added saying that if the commission was going to consider the title of the property, then it was “intruding into the rights already settled”.

The commission cannot say that despite the land being Waqf property, the government could pass an order cancelling the titles of the property. If the commission arrived at a different conclusion, “it would open up a Pandora’s box”.

The court noted that the Waqf commission had gone into the issue of Waqf land in 2010 and the finding of the commission had been approved by the government. None of these matters had been considered while appointing the new commission.

Besides, the terms of reference of the commission did not say that the inquiry would be confined to the land other than the Waqf property. As such, the appointment of a commission to inquire into the Waqf property would affect the rights of the parties concerned.

The court also asked the State government to explain under what legal authority the commission had been appointed and adjourned the hearing on the petition to January 29.

The petitioner contended that the State government had no power or authority to appoint a commission of inquiry to find a fact which had already been found existing by a civil court and later the High Court. The constitution of the commission was in violation of the Waqf Act 1995, a Central Act.