Kochi: Farook College, which is embroiled in the Munambam land dispute with Kerala Wakf Samrakshana Vedhi (Wakf Protection Forum), has claimed before the Kerala High Court that the lands in question are not Wakf property. The High Court was hearing a petition challenging the appointment of an Inquiry Commission to look into the dispute.

Siddiq Sait gave the land to Farook College in 1950. However, whether Siddiq intended it to be a gift or a Wakf is disputed. A decision on the dispute may decide the fate of various residents whose predecessors statedly bought the property from the College.

Advocate K I Mayankutty Mather, appearing for the College, submitted that for a property to be a Wakf, there should be a permanent dedication to God. The College submitted that in the gift deed made by Siddiq Sait towards the College, it is mentioned that if, for some reason, the college is not operational at a future point in time, the property will revert back to Siddiq Sait or his successors. The College argued that since there is a condition for reversion, it cannot be regarded as a permanent dedication to God.

ADVERTISEMENT

On the other hand, the petitioner, Kerala Wakf Samrakshana Vedhi, submitted that the College had submitted an affidavit before the Civil Court depicting that the property was Wakf. It also relied on the 1971 order of the Civil Court, which purportedly held that the property was given by a Wakf deed and not a gift deed.

Today, the College submitted that the issue of whether the deed was a Wakf or gift was not before the civil court. Mather further submitted that the affidavit saying that it was wakf property was submitted by the vyavahara karyasthan of the College and the said person did not have any authority to file the affidavit. He stated that it was a suit against trespass on the property, and no arguments relating to the nature of the property were made in the pleadings in that case. He also argued that the M A Nisar Commission included the land as Wakf property without any basis.

The court orally observed that even the Commission's remark on the nature of the property would have far-reaching consequences.

ADVERTISEMENT

It is significant to note that the court had, on the previous date, asked how the State could appoint a Commission when the Civil Court declared the land as Wakf. The college urged that any remark from the court that this is a wakf will have far-reaching consequences.

The petitioner appealed the verdict and their sentence before the Appeal Court. The Appeal Court affirmed the order of the trial court. The petitioners subsequently approached the High Court.

The main argument of the petitioners was that the conviction was based mainly on the evidence given by the victim and her mother. The petitioners submitted that there were no independent witnesses. The court, however, rejected this argument by saying that the testimony of an injured witness, if wholly reliable, can be accepted and the absence of an independent witness is not fatal to prosecution. The court observed that the victim's version was consistent and was not shaken during cross-examination. The court further said that the law does not insist on multiple witnesses.
(With inputs from LiveLaw.)

The comments posted here/below/in the given space are not on behalf of Onmanorama. The person posting the comment will be in sole ownership of its responsibility. According to the central government's IT rules, obscene or offensive statement made against a person, religion, community or nation is a punishable offense, and legal action would be taken against people who indulge in such activities.