Who gets to hold Kali Puja, 2026 on plots that a Waqf Estate claims but online records show as enemy property? The Calcutta High Court has left that first call to the Murshidabad District Magistrate, after noting a serious dispute over ownership.
Kolkata: With a deadline of 3 PM the next day, the Calcutta High Court on November 6, 2026 directed the District Magistrate of Murshidabad to hear both sides and decide whether private respondents were entitled to hold Kali Puja, 2026 on disputed plots at Golapbag in Murshidabad. The plots are claimed by a Waqf Estate, but online land records show them as owned by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India [Md Kabirul Islam v. State of West Bengal & Ors.].
A Vacation Bench of Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee passed the order while disposing of a writ petition filed by Md Kabirul Islam, Mutawalli of the Fazle Khoda Nawab Sujauddin Khan Jumma Masjid Waqf Estate.
Two sets of records, one serious dispute
After weighing the competing documents, the Court concluded that ownership of the plots is seriously disputed:
“Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and the materials on record, it appears that the records downloaded from the website, namely, ‘Bangler Bhumi’ shows that the owner of the said property is the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, which is contrary to the records relied upon by Mr. Ahmed. Therefore, there is a serious dispute with regard to the ownership of the plots no. 46 to 49.”
What the petitioner told the Court
The Court recorded that there is “a long pending dispute” between the petitioner and the private respondents over plots 47, 48 and 49 at Golapbag, J.L. No. 50, Police Station and District Murshidabad. According to the petition, one of the plots is recorded as a masjid and another is used as an Eidgah. The petitioner alleged that the private respondents were preparing to hold Kali Puja on the land despite pending proceedings, that people opposing it had been threatened, and that the police had not acted on his representation of November 2, 2026. These are the petitioner’s allegations and were not adjudicated by the Court.
Counsel for the petitioner relied on an order dated October 30, 2024 in C.O. 3799 of 2024 and argued that the permission granted for Kali Puja, 2026 was liable to be set aside. In that order, a Coordinate Bench had permitted Kali Puja for five days from October 31, 2024 solely on L.R. Plot No. 49 instead of Plot No. 46, to maintain peace and communal harmony, and had added:
“It is made clear that the parties to the case shall not be permitted to claim any equitable right upon the said L.R. Plot No. 49 by dint of this order.”
The petitioner also pointed to an order of September 2, 2025 passed by the Waqf Tribunal, West Bengal in Suit No. 38 of 2022, directing the parties to maintain status quo over the plots.
The organisers’ reply and the State’s report
Counsel for the private respondents handed over a record of rights downloaded from the State’s ‘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”. He submitted that the petitioner had no right over the plots and that the organisers had obtained permission from the authorities in accordance with law. They were also not parties before the Waqf Tribunal, he said, so its status quo order did not bind them.
For the State, a report of the Inspector-in-Charge, Murshidabad Police Station was placed before the Court. It stated that special police personnel and Central Police Forces had been deployed round the clock in the locality and that peace and communal harmony were being maintained.
The direction to the District Magistrate
The Court then asked the District Magistrate, or an officer authorised by him, to take up the question after hearing both sides, dispensing with further notice:
“The District Magistrate or the authorized officer is directed to consider the issue by 3 P.M. tomorrow and to pass a reasoned order indicating whether the private respondents are entitled to hold Kali Puja, 2026. It is made clear that any permission or rejection shall not create any equity in favour of any of the parties.”
The parties are free to produce or rely on any documents before the District Magistrate. With that, the writ petition, WPA 31681 of 2026, was disposed of.
Why the order matters
The order does not decide who owns the land or whether the puja may be held. Faced with conflicting records, a Waqf claim and an online entry showing the Custodian of Enemy Property as owner, the Court sent the immediate question of permission to the district administration for a reasoned decision after hearing both sides, and made clear that whatever is decided will create no equity for either party. Title remains a matter for the appropriate forum, including the Waqf Tribunal proceedings already pending.
Case Title: Md Kabirul Islam v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No.: WPA 31681 of 2026
Bench: Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee (Vacation Bench), Calcutta High Court
Date of Order: November 6, 2026
Appearances: Samim Ahammed, Ambiya Khatun, Enamul Islam, Asif Ekbal Baidya and Nasirul Hayra for the petitioner; Somnath Adhikary and P.P. Mandal for respondent no. 12; Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Mazumder with Suchitra Sinha Chatterjee and Milind Mohul Ghosh for the State
