Munambam’s long wait for justice

Residents of Munambam demand revenue rights for their land holdings.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

The vexed Munambam land issue refuses to die down in Kerala. Instead, it has taken a new course following recent judicial intervention on the issue.

The Kerala State Waqf Board had recently included the disputed land in Munambam coast in Ernakulam, which is inhabited by about 600 families, most of them Christians, in the Waqf register as a Waqf property.

The occupants of the land in Munambam have been protesting for more than 150 days demanding that the revenue rights of their holdings be restored. They claim to have purchased the holdings from a trust, for which the property was reportedly given as Waqf in 1950.

The protest, which is spearheaded by the Assembly of Christian Trust Services, is supported by Sangh Parivar outfits and some Hindu community organisations. On the other side is the Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedi, a Muslim outfit dedicated for the restitution of what it terms as alienated Waqf holdings. Sangh Parivar outfits have also attempted to invite national attention to the issue by bringing in Union Ministers and even members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Waqf Bill to the protest venue.

The government had sought to de-escalate the social tension and buy time to address the sensitive issue through the appointment of a judicial commission, as the land dispute had by then attained communal overtones. It appointed C. N. Ramachandran Nair, a former judge of the Kerala High Court under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, to submit recommendations on the nature of the land and make suggestions to protect the rights of the “bonafide occupants”.

Last week, the government’s decision was struck down by the Kerala High Court. The court quashed the appointment of the commission as it felt that the possible findings of the commission would leave an impact on the cases related to the Munambam land and its registration as a Waqf property by the Waqf Board. The single judge of the Court asserted that only the Waqf Tribunal, a judicial body established by law, can revoke or modify a decision on a Waqf property taken by the Waqf Board.

The Court went on to point out that any observation that could be made by the judicial commission regarding the “matter that is pending before the Waqf Tribunal can have repercussions.” It also aired its apprehensions that the “findings of the commission may have a propensity to prejudice the rights of the contesting parties” before the Tribunal.

The government wanted the former judge to find out the present condition of the land, its nature and extent, besides advising it on the ways and means to protect the rights and interests of the bona fide occupants of the holding. The terms of reference fixed for the judicial commission appeared to have crossed the path of the Waqf Tribunal, established by law. This may have compelled the Court to strike down the appointment of the commission. The only solace for the government was that the Court upheld its right to collect necessary materials to decide on the course of action on an issue that can affect public order.

The response of the State government, especially the State Minister for Law, to the verdict appeared to be wrong. Responding to the developments, the Minister stated that the government would protect the interests of the residents of Munambam irrespective of the nature of the land. Instead of doubling down, the government should have waited for the decision on the matter that is pending before a court of law, which is the Waqf Tribunal.

The State government is now set to approach the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court against the single judge’s order quashing the appointment of the commission. The appeal is likely to come up before the court in a few days whereas the Tribunal has listed the case to be taken up again on March 29.

The legal proceedings that were initiated before the High Court have forced the commission into an uneasy situation. The commission chose to suspend its activities since its appointment was challenged before the High Court. The functioning of the panel remains suspended as judicial finality has not been arrived at regarding its appointment.

A long-drawn legal battle is in store for all the parties to the disputes before both the High Court and the Tribunal. Justice may be delivered, but it could be late.