State Government Cannot Interfere in Waqf Property Matters: Kerala High Court Quashes Commission of Inquiry

Once Waqf Board Declares a Property as Waqf, Only the Tribunal Has Jurisdiction—Government Has No Authority to Appoint an Inquiry Commission - Kerala High Court struck down the Kerala Government’s appointment of a Commission of Inquiry into a disputed Waqf property in Munambam, Ernakulam. The Court held that the government has no jurisdiction to interfere in matters concerning Waqf properties once they have been declared as Waqf by the Waqf Board, and such disputes fall exclusively under the Waqf Tribunal’s domain.

Quashing the Government Order (Ext.P1) dated November 27, 2024, by which Justice C.N. Ramachandran Nair was appointed to head the Commission of Inquiry, the Court ruled, "The Waqf Act is a complete code governing Waqf properties. Once the Waqf Board has declared a property as Waqf, the State Government has no authority to appoint a Commission to investigate ownership disputes over the same property."

The petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 2839 & 3817 of 2025), filed by Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi and others, challenged the state’s attempt to intervene in a dispute concerning Waqf property in Survey No. 18/1 of Vadakkekara Village, arguing that the matter was already pending before the Waqf Tribunal, and any parallel inquiry by the government was illegal.

"High Court Rejects Government's Justification That Commission Was Needed to Address Public Protests"
The Kerala Government defended its decision, arguing that the Commission of Inquiry was necessary due to large-scale protests by occupants of the land, who opposed the Waqf Board’s attempts to evict them. It contended that the appointment of the Commission was an exercise of its power under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to address a matter of public importance.

Rejecting this argument, the Court held, "Public protests cannot override statutory provisions. The Waqf Tribunal is the only authority competent to decide Waqf-related disputes, and the State Government cannot interfere under the guise of appointing a Commission of Inquiry."

The Court further observed, "The power of the Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry does not extend to matters where a statutory mechanism already exists for adjudication. When the law specifically vests jurisdiction in the Waqf Tribunal, the Government's appointment of an Inquiry Commission is without jurisdiction and unsustainable."

"Commission of Inquiry Cannot Undermine the Authority of the Waqf Tribunal"
The Court emphasized that the Waqf Board had already declared the disputed land as Waqf property through Order dated May 20, 2019 (Ext.R1(a)), and that the validity of this declaration was pending adjudication before the Waqf Tribunal in W.O.A. No. 38/2023.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari (2022) 4 SCC 414, the Court held, "Section 85 of the Waqf Act expressly bars civil courts, revenue authorities, or any other body from deciding Waqf-related disputes. The Government’s attempt to constitute an Inquiry Commission to review a Waqf property dispute is a clear violation of this statutory bar."

The Court further ruled, "A Commission of Inquiry cannot be used as a backdoor method to interfere in matters already under judicial consideration. The State Government’s attempt to ‘re-examine’ the status of the property amounts to an encroachment upon the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal and is legally impermissible."

"Government Acted Without Application of Mind—High Court Finds Inquiry Commission Unjustified"
Analyzing the Government Order (Ext.P1), the Court observed that the decision to appoint the Inquiry Commission was taken without due consideration of relevant legal principles, including the finality of the Waqf Board’s decision and the bar on interference under the Waqf Act.

The Court held, "The Government Order does not provide any rationale for why the Inquiry Commission was necessary when the dispute was already pending before the Waqf Tribunal. The failure to consider existing legal proceedings and statutory provisions renders the decision arbitrary and unsustainable in law."

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohindhr Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405, the Court emphasized, "The validity of an administrative decision must be judged by the reasons stated in the order itself, not by justifications offered later. Since the Government Order does not establish a valid legal basis for the appointment of the Inquiry Commission, it cannot be sustained."

"Commission of Inquiry Quashed—Waqf Tribunal to Decide the Dispute"
Striking down the Government Order appointing the Commission of Inquiry, the Court ruled, "The appointment of the Inquiry Commission is illegal and without jurisdiction. The Government Order dated November 27, 2024 (Ext.P1) is hereby quashed. The dispute concerning the property shall be adjudicated solely by the Waqf Tribunal as per law."

Reiterating the primacy of the Waqf Tribunal in such matters, the Court concluded, "Once a property has been declared as Waqf, the dispute regarding its ownership and occupation falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal. Any parallel inquiry initiated by the State Government is null and void."

"A Landmark Judgment Upholding the Autonomy of Waqf Boards and Tribunals"
This ruling reinforces the exclusive jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal in deciding Waqf property disputes and prevents state interference in religious endowments. The Court has affirmed that statutory authorities cannot be bypassed through administrative maneuvers, ensuring that Waqf properties remain protected under the law.

Date of Decision: 17 March 2025