The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a Kerala High Court order that had declared the Munambam property as not being a Waqf land and ordered status quo with respect to the land till January 27.
A bench of
Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, however, clarified that it has not stayed the High Court’s observation upholding the State Government’s decision to appoint a one-member Commission of Inquiry to investigate the status and extent of the 404.76-acre property in Munambam.
The court passed the interim order while issuing notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedi against the High Court’s verdict.
The bench noted in its order, “The matter requires consideration. Issue notice returnable in week commencing 27 January. In the meantime, the declaration in the impugned judgment that the property in question is not subject matter of waqf shall remain stayed, and the status quo as regards the same shall be maintained.”
At the outset, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, assisted by AoR Abdulla Naseeh for the petitioner, argued that the High Court’s observations on the validity of the Waqf deed were unnecessary, as the issue was not under consideration, Live Law reported.
The writ petition challenged only the State’s constitution of the inquiry commission and the issues related to the validity of the Waqf deed, and the nature of the land are exclusively within the domain of the Waqf Tribunal.
He further mentioned that proceedings are pending before the Waqf Tribunal challenging the notification of the land as Waqf. Hence, Ahmadi argued, the High Court erred in entering into those questions.
Ahmadi said, “I went to the writ Court challenging this inquiry by the Commissioner of Inquiry to say that by virtue of the Bar enacted under Sections 85, 83 read with 7 of the Waqf Act, it is only the Waqf Tribunal that has the jurisdiction to determine. What division bench does, it goes into my waqf deed and declares that it is not waqf but a gift.”
Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, representing the State, opposed the petitioner, stating that it was merely a third party. He noted that the muttawalli of the relevant Waqf neither approached the High Court nor raised any grievance over the constitution of the inquiry commission, and that the petitioner had no direct connection to the proceedings.
Gupta further added that the inquiry commission has already submitted its report to the State Government. Regarding locus, Ahmadi submitted that the petitioner has a representative interest in the protection of Waqfs. He submitted that the muttawalli of the Waqf has sided with the opposite parties.
