The Kerala High Court has issued a significant directive to the Ernakulam District Collector, explicitly restricting revenue officials from undertaking actions beyond the provisional acceptance of land tax in the contentious Munambam waqf land case. The bench of Justice C Jayachandran issued this order on Thursday, emphasizing that the collector must not exceed the scope of the court's previous interim instructions.
Clarifying the Scope of the Interim Order
This directive came during the hearing of petitions filed by the Bhoo Samrakshana Samithy of Munambam and others, who are seeking a formal declaration of ownership over the disputed land. Earlier, a division bench of the High Court had ruled that the land in question at Munambam, near Kochi, is not waqf property. However, a petition challenging this verdict is currently pending before the Supreme Court.
In light of the ongoing legal proceedings, a single bench had previously allowed revenue authorities to provisionally accept land tax from the petitioners. This acceptance was explicitly made subject to the final outcome of the cases pending in both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Officials Exceeded Permitted Authority
During the hearing on Thursday, the court was informed that despite the clear limitations of the interim order, revenue officials had proceeded to allow mutation, property transfers, and other related actions concerning landowners of the disputed plot in Kuzhuppilly Village. The bench noted that these actions were clearly beyond the authority granted by its earlier order.
Justice Jayachandran's bench accordingly issued a clarification. It stated that the previous order only authorized the acceptance of land tax on a provisional basis. The court directed the District Collector to ensure that no further orders are passed regarding mutation, issuance of the register of rights (title deed), or any similar matters, unless explicitly permitted under the interim order.
Adjournment and Next Steps
The High Court has adjourned the petitions to January 14 for further proceedings. This case highlights the complex legal battle over land ownership in Munambam, where the status of the property remains in judicial limbo. The court's firm intervention underscores the necessity for administrative authorities to strictly adhere to judicial mandates, especially in sensitive property disputes with multiple layers of litigation.
The core legal position remains that the ownership of the land is still under judicial scrutiny. All actions by the revenue department are therefore temporary and contingent on the final verdict from the higher courts.
