The Calcutta High Court on November 6 directed the Murshidabad District Magistrate to decide whether private respondents can organise Kali Puja, 2026, on disputed land claimed by a Waqf Estate, after hearing both sides.

The direction came after the private respondents, who sought to organise the Puja, produced land records showing the Custodian of Enemy Property for India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, as the recorded owner of the disputed plots.

Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee passed the order while disposing of a writ petition filed by Md Kabirul Islam, Mutawalli of Fazle Khoda Nawab Sujauddin Khan Jumma Masjid Waqf Estate.

The petitioner had alleged police inaction despite apprehensions of forcible entry and threats in connection with the proposed celebrations.

The dispute concerns plots situated at Golapbag, Murshidabad. The petitioner approached the High Court alleging that the private respondents were seeking to organise Kali Puja on land claimed by the Waqf Estate, despite pending proceedings before the Waqf Tribunal and an earlier High Court order concerning the use of an adjoining plot.

During the hearing, counsel for the private respondents produced a Record of Rights downloaded from the Banglar Bhumi portal, which showed the owner of plots 42 to 49 as the 'Custodian of Enemy Property for India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India'.

Relying on these records, the Puja organisers submitted that the petitioner/Waqf had no right over the said plots. They further submitted that they had obtained permission from the respective authorities in accordance with law and should be allowed to organise Kali Puja.

The petitioner, however, relied upon records concerning the Waqf Estate and an order dated September 2, 2025, passed by the Waqf Tribunal, West Bengal, in a 2022 suit, directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed properties.

Opposing the petitioner's reliance on the Tribunal's order, counsel for the private respondents submitted that his clients were not parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal and, therefore, the order was not binding on them.

After considering the rival submissions, the High Court observed that the Banglar Bhumi records showing the Ministry of Home Affairs as the owner of the property were contrary to the records relied upon by the petitioner's counsel.

"Therefore, there is a serious dispute with regard to the ownership of the plots no. 46 to 49," the Court observed.

The petitioner had also relied upon an earlier 2024 order passed by the High Court permitting the private respondents to organise Kali Puja solely on L.R. Plot No. 49, instead of L.R. Plot No. 46, for five days commencing October 31, 2024.

The Court had directed the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Murshidabad, to keep vigil and take effective steps to maintain peace and prevent any untoward incident in the locality. It had further clarified that the permission would not confer any equitable right over Plot No. 49.

Relying on this order, the petitioner contended that the permission was confined to a particular plot and a specified period and did not authorise the organisation of Kali Puja on L.R. Plot Nos. 47 and 48.

In the writ petition, the petitioner stated that C.S. Plot No. 31, corresponding to L.R. Plot No. 47, measuring approximately 1.30 acres, is recorded as 'Masjid', while C.S. Plot No. 32, corresponding to L.R. Plot No. 48, measuring approximately 1.42 acres, is recorded as 'Bagan' and used as an Eidgah.

He alleged that the private respondents and their associates were making preparations to enter the disputed properties, erect pandals, install idols and organise Kali Puja despite the subsisting judicial orders.

The petitioner further alleged that persons opposing the proposed activities had been threatened and that the developments had created communal tension in the locality.

According to the petition, a representation dated November 2, 2026, was submitted before the State, district, police and Waqf authorities seeking preventive intervention and protection of the properties.

The petitioner alleged that the police failed to take effective action and that, when he approached Murshidabad Police Station, he was informed that directions had been received from higher authorities to permit the proposed Puja.

He also alleged that a police officer threatened him with false criminal cases if he or other members of the committee attempted to obstruct the celebrations.

The State, meanwhile, placed before the Court a report prepared by the Inspector-in-Charge, Murshidabad Police Station.

The report indicated that special police personnel as well as Central Police Forces had been deployed round the clock in the locality and that peace and communal harmony were being maintained to prevent any untoward incident.

In view of the serious dispute regarding ownership, the High Court directed the District Magistrate, Murshidabad, or any responsible officer authorised by him, to consider whether the private respondents were entitled to hold Kali Puja, 2026.

The Court directed the authority to give both the petitioner and the private respondents an opportunity of hearing.

Dispensing with the requirement of issuing any further notice, it directed the District Magistrate or the authorised officer to decide the issue by 3 PM on November 7 and pass a reasoned order indicating whether the private respondents were entitled to organise the Puja.

The Court clarified that any permission granted or rejected would not create any equity in favour of either party. It also granted liberty to the parties to produce or rely upon documents before the District Magistrate or the authorised officer.

With these directions, the High Court disposed of the writ petition.

Case Title: Md Kabirul Islam v State of West Bengal & Ors.