KOCHI: Although residents of Munambam who have been agitating for revenue rights over their land, against the Waqf Board’s claims, have welcomed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill passed by Parliament, their struggle is far from over.
Legal experts point out that the bill may not resolve the Munambam issue as it does not have a retrospective effect. Moreover, there is a divergence of opinion over whether all waqf properties currently held by individuals would automatically gain absolute title, even in the absence of supporting documents.
George Poonthottam, senior advocate of the Kerala High Court, said the bill is not a solution to the Munambam issue or the concerns of its residents. “First, it does not have retrospective effect. Moreover, there is a clear distinction between a waqf and waqf property. Section 2A of the bill applies only to a trust, society, or public charity created by a Muslim and to property involved in such entities,” he said.
According to George, “In the case of Munambam, according to the Waqf Board, waqf was established through a registered deed, and Farook College was appointed as mutawalli (caretaker) by the waqif (the person who created the waqf). It’s on that basis that the Waqf Board registered the property in the asset register. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2A will not come to the rescue of residents, as claimed by those who piloted the bill. “The Union law minister has clearly stated that the bill does not operate retrospectively. Furthermore, the provision in question is an insertion, not a substitution, and thus lacks retrospective force,” he added.
Justice B Kemal Pasha, former judge of the Kerala HC, said that this is only political drama. “The Waqf bill will not be beneficial to the residents of Munambam,” he said.
A legal expert said that according to the amendment bill, the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 is applicable, allowing all waqf properties currently managed by mutawallis to be recognised even without documentary evidence proving the title. “However, the provision of the bill excludes the concept of ‘waqf by user’ in disputed cases under litigation. If the land has been uninterruptedly possessed for 30 years, it will be protected under this provision,” he added.
Meanwhile, HC advocate Sajith Kumar V said the 2025 amendment to the Waqf Act brings ultimate relief to the residents of Munambam. It is a fact that they were the real owners with sale deeds executed by an educational trust ‘Farook College’ and the dispute arose merely on classifying the property of the trust as waqf and thus declaring the transfer as void.
“In view of the insertion of section 2(A), the Waqf Act will not apply to a trust like Farook College regulated under statutory provisions for public charities,” Sajith added.