The Munambam Waqf land dispute in Ernakulam district, Kerala, centres around nearly 404 acres of coastal land, where around 600 families have been living for decades. While residents claim that have been residing on the land for decades and that they hold the title deeds secured after purchasing the land, the Kerala State Waqf Board allege that the land was given to it as waqf in 1950.
Waqf refers to an endowment made by a Muslim for charitable or religious purposes, such as building mosques, schools, hospitals, or other public institutions. Waqf land cannot be sold, gifted, inherited or encumbered.
In 1865, the 'Pandarapattam Vaka Proclamation' issued by Travancore King Ayilyam Thirunal granted land to people for cultivation. Later, in 1902, Haji Musa Seth, a businessman from Gujarat, purchased 404 acres of land in this area under the provisions of that proclamation. At the time of his purchase, hundreds of fishermen were already residing there.
In 1950, Siddique Seth, the husband of Haji Musa Seth’s daughter, transferred this land to Farook College in Kozhikode. The document stated that the land was being given as waqf for educational purposes in accordance with Islamic principles, subject to two conditions. First, the income generated from the land would be used for the educational needs of Farook College, and for this purpose the college was granted rights of sale and purchase. Second, if Farook College ceased to exist, or if any land remained after meeting the college’s needs, the property would revert to the Seth family’s descendants.
In 1951, Farook College obtained the title deed and took possession of the land. In 1962, the college attempted to evict the residents living there, leading to protests and litigation. The case initially resulted in a ruling in favour of the local residents. However, in 1967, Farook College appealed to the Paravur Sub Court, and in 1971, the court ruled that the land belonged to Farook College.
As sand accumulated along the coast and new land was formed, more people migrated to the area and began living there. The residents argued that land reclaimed by the sea and later reformed should be treated as revenue land and alleged that Farook College was taking possession of such land in violation of this principle. In 1971, a receiver was appointed to manage the property and address the disputes. As the number of occupants increased, the college approached the High Court in 1975 seeking police protection for eviction. The High Court upheld the earlier ruling that the land belonged to Farook College.
Following this judgment, the college sought police assistance for eviction. The residents also approached the High Court, arguing that they were tenants living on land reclaimed from the sea and therefore on revenue land. However, the verdict went against them, and the court reaffirmed that the land belonged to Farook College. The judgment recorded in several places that the land had been received by the college through a gift deed.
Amid continued tensions, mediation efforts were undertaken. During discussions, the Farook College management stated that funds were needed for the development of the college. In 1988, the residents collectively raised approximately Rs 33 lakh and purchased the land. Around 600 sale deeds were registered, and Hasan Kutty Haji, the then managing trustee of Farook College, executed the documents. The area remained without major disputes for nearly three decades thereafter.
In 2019, the land was entered into the Waqf Board’s Asset Register. This became public in 2022 when the Waqf Board issued a notice to the Kochi Tahsildar directing that land tax collection, property transactions, and re-registration in the area be stopped. The residents approached their MLA and met with the Chief Minister, the Revenue Minister, and the Minister in-charge of the Waqf Board. The state government initially decided in favour of the residents and directed restoration of the previous status. However, an organisation named the Waqf Protection Committee filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging this decision, and the court granted a stay on the government’s order.
The residents maintain that they legally purchased their plots from the Farook College Managing Committee and hold registered sale deeds, land tax receipts, and other revenue records. In contrast, the Kerala State Waqf Board asserts that the land forms part of a religious endowment based on the 1950 document executed in favour of Farook College.
The central legal question is whether the 1950 document constitutes a valid waqf deed or merely a gift deed. The Waqf Board argues that the land was dedicated as waqf property and therefore cannot be sold or transferred, rendering subsequent transactions invalid. The residents contend that the land was lawfully transferred and that the Board’s claim, raised decades later, threatens their homes and livelihoods.
The dispute has led to prolonged litigation before the Kerala High Court, the Waqf Tribunal, and subsequently the Supreme Court. The High Court examined the validity of the Waqf Board’s declaration and questioned the delay in asserting the claim. As the matter remains subjudice, the final determination of the land’s status is yet to be conclusively settled.
Beyond the courts, the issue has triggered large-scale protests by residents under local action committees. Demonstrations, hunger strikes, and political interventions brought statewide attention to the dispute. Following which, the Kerala government appointed a judicial commission to examine the matter and explore possible solutions, including state acquisition to protect the residents while addressing the Waqf Board’s claims.
The Munambam dispute outcome could have wider implications for the interpretation of Waqf law, property rights, and the powers of Waqf Boards. It remains a complex intersection of legal interpretation, historical documentation, and the lived realities of hundreds of families awaiting clarity over their land rights.
Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Demand for legal recognition of land rights
Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Region Classification
Rural
Type of Land
Common and Private
Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)
Status of Project
Original Project Deadline
Whether the Project has been Delayed
Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users
Fishing, Residential area
Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict
Source/Reference
Total investment involved (in Crores):
₹
Type of investment:
Year of Estimation
Has the Conflict Ended?
No
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Other, Land Reform Laws
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
Yes
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Lack of legal protection over land rights
Legal Status:
In Court
Status of Case In Court
Pending
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
Supreme Court of India
Case Number
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Reported Details of the Violation:
Date of Violation
Location of Violation
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Revenue Department, Government of Kerala; Registration Department, Government of Kerala; District Administration; Kerala State Waqf Board
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
No
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
Farook College Managing Committee; Residents/Local Action Committees; The Catholic Church
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?








