Munambam Land Dispute: Kerala High Court Stays Order Cancelling State Appointed Inquiry Commission

A division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu passed the interim order in the State's appeal against a March 17 decision of the single judge which had cancelled the appointment of an Inquiry Commission set up by the State to resolve the land dispute between residents of Munambam and the Waqf Board.

"During the pendency of these appeals, operation and implementation of the judgment dated 17th March 2025 is stayed. The Report submitted by the Commission constituted under the Exhibit P1 notification in accordance with the terms of reference will not be acted upon by the State Government without seeking leave of this Court in these appeals," the bench said while pronouncing the interim order. 

The Court prima facie observed that the State was within its power under the Commissions of Inquiry Act while appointing the Commission and the Commission was proceeding as per its statutory mandate. The Court observed that the functioning of the Commission would in no way interfere with the ongoing case before the Waqf Tribunal.

"The action of the Appellant - State in issuing the Notification dated 27 November 2024 is in the exercise of its statutory power, and the Commission is proceeding in accordance with its statutory mandate. The Commission would function as an advisory body; its report is not binding or conclusive. 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 role of a Commission is separate and independent from that of the courts and tribunals. The mere initiation of inquiry by the Commission pursuant to a Notification dated 27 November 2024 under Section 3 of Act 60 of 1952 cannot, by itself, be construed as interfering with the jurisdiction of the court or tribunal."

The matter will be heard next on June 16. The Court directed the Government to not act upon any report submitted by the Commission in the meanwhile without getting the permission of the Court.

In its appeal, the State has argued that even if for argument sake it is assumed that the concerned land is Waqf, it would not affect the power of the Government to consider ways and means to settle a dispute which has developed into a public protest, leading to a law-and-order problem.

The State emphasized that the Inquiry Commission is merely entrusted with collecting information and it has no power of adjudication of any questions of title or dispute. It submitted that the cause of action, if any, will arise only after the Government takes any decision on the recommendations of the Commission.

The bench had during the hearing on Friday orally observed that currently it was only concerned with whether the petition before the Single Bench should have been a Writ Petition or PIL and whether there are well-settled laws for setting aside an exercise of power of the Government like this and if it has been mentioned in the order of the Single Bench.

The Court today entered into prima facie observation that merely because a Commission of Inquiry is headed by a retired High Court Judge does not mean that the Waqf Tribunal will view the matter differently. The Single Judge while cancelling the appointment of the Inquiry Commission had observed that any observation of the Commission regarding the nature of the property has the potential to prejudice the rights of the parties. The Division Court in its order reminded that the Waqf Tribunal is headed by a judge and he is expected to understand the limits of inquiry commission and the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

The Division Bench further observed that a notification appointing Inquiry Commission cannot be set aside saying the notification does not give reasons for appointing the commission if the existence of situation warranting the appointment is otherwise established. The Court said that the Commissions of Inquiry Act does not mandate that reasons for appointment should be given in the notification.

The Court also doubted if the case should have been filed as a Public Interest Litigation rather than a Writ Petition (Civil). The Court noted that admittedly the petitioners before the Single Judge had not suffered any direct injury but they were espousing a cause on behalf of the community and people in general. The Court said that if it was supposed to be a PIL it should have been placed before a Division Bench and for that reason alone the order of the Single Judge can be set aside following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limted v GRSE Limited Workmens Union and Others (2025). The Court said this issue needs to be considered seriously.

Case Title: State of Kerala v T. K. I. Ahamed Sherief and Others

Case No: WA 603/ 2025