Calcutta High Court: Murshidabad DM To Decide 2026 Kali Puja on Enemy Property

• The Calcutta High Court directed the Murshidabad District Magistrate to decide on Kali Puja 2026 permission for disputed land in Golapbag.
• The land is claimed by the Fazle Khoda Nawab Sujauddin Khan Jumma Masjid Waqf Estate, but Banglar Bhumi records show the Custodian of Enemy Property for India as the owner.
• A Waqf Tribunal order from September 2, 2025, mandated status quo on the properties, but private respondents claim it is not binding on them.
• The High Court noted a "serious dispute" over ownership of plots 46 to 49 due to conflicting land records.
• The Murshidabad DM must hear both sides before making a final determination on the Kali Puja permission.

The Calcutta High Court's decision to delegate the final determination to the Murshidabad DM emphasizes the critical role of local administration in navigating such sensitive matters.

The Calcutta High Court, through Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee, issued a directive on November 6, instructing the Murshidabad District Magistrate to make a definitive decision regarding the organization of Kali Puja in 2026. This order pertains to a contentious land parcel situated in Golapbag, Murshidabad, which is at the heart of a dispute between a Waqf Estate and private individuals seeking to conduct the religious festival.

The legal challenge was initiated by Md Kabirul Islam, the Mutawalli of the Fazle Khoda Nawab Sujauddin Khan Jumma Masjid Waqf Estate. The petitioner approached the High Court alleging that private respondents were making preparations to hold Kali Puja on land claimed by the Waqf Estate, despite ongoing legal proceedings before the Waqf Tribunal and a previous High Court order concerning an adjacent plot. Concerns were also raised about potential forcible entry and threats, with the petitioner citing a lack of action from local police authorities.

During the High Court proceedings, the private respondents, who are the prospective organizers of the Kali Puja, presented land records obtained from the Banglar Bhumi portal. These records indicated that the Custodian of Enemy Property for India, operating under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, was the officially registered owner of plots numbered 42 through 49. Based on this documentation, the organizers asserted that the Waqf Estate lacked any legitimate claim over these specific plots and maintained that they had secured all necessary permissions for the event.

Conversely, the Waqf Estate presented its own set of records and referenced an order issued by the Waqf Tribunal, West Bengal, on September 2, 2025. This Tribunal order, which originated from a 2022 suit, mandated that all parties involved maintain the status quo concerning the disputed properties. However, the private respondents countered that this Tribunal order was not binding on them, as they were not parties to those specific proceedings. The petitioner further detailed that C.S. Plot No. 31, corresponding to L.R. Plot No. 47 and measuring approximately 1.30 acres, is officially recorded as 'Masjid', while C.S. Plot No. 32, corresponding to L.R. Plot No. 48 and spanning about 1.42 acres, is recorded as 'Bagan' and utilized as an Eidgah. The petitioner accused the private respondents and their associates of preparing to enter these properties, erect pandals, and install idols.

The Calcutta High Court acknowledged a "serious dispute" regarding the ownership of plots 46 to 49, noting the stark contradiction between the Banglar Bhumi records presented by the private respondents and the documents relied upon by the Waqf Estate. Given these conflicting claims, the court's directive specifically mandates the Murshidabad District Magistrate to conduct a comprehensive hearing involving both the Waqf Estate and the private respondents. The DM is tasked with considering all presented evidence and arguments before making a final determination on the Kali Puja 2026 permission.

The court also referenced an earlier 2024 order that had permitted the private respondents to organize Kali Puja solely on L.R. Plot No. 49 for a limited five-day period commencing October 31, 2024. That previous order had explicitly stated that this permission did not establish any equitable rights over Plot No. 49 and had instructed the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Murshidabad, to ensure peace and prevent any disturbances. The petitioner argued that this prior permission was strictly confined to one specific plot and a defined timeframe, and therefore did not extend authorization to L.R. Plot Nos. 47 and 48.

This case, involving a Calcutta HC Kali Puja Enemy Property Murshidabad land dispute, underscores the intricate challenges inherent in land disputes within India, particularly when historical ownership, religious institutions, and government records intersect. The conflicting entries in official land records, such as those from Banglar Bhumi showing the Custodian of Enemy Property for India as owner versus the Waqf Estate's claims, highlight the complexities faced by authorities. The Calcutta High Court's decision to delegate the final determination to the Murshidabad DM emphasizes the critical role of local administration in navigating such sensitive matters.

The resolution of this specific Waqf Estate land dispute Kali Puja issue will not only decide the immediate permission for the festival but also potentially influence how similar disputes involving properties claimed by Waqf and those designated as enemy property are handled in Murshidabad and across the region. The interplay between the Enemy Property Act and the Waqf Act, alongside the authority of the Calcutta High Court, Waqf Tribunal, and the district administration, makes this a significant case for understanding jurisdictional boundaries and due diligence in land record verification.

Lawyers advising on land disputes in India, especially those involving religious institutions or properties with historical ownership complexities, must conduct exhaustive due diligence on land records from multiple sources (e.g., Banglar Bhumi, Waqf Tribunal) and understand the interplay between the Enemy Property Act and Waqf Act. This case underscores the importance of clarifying jurisdictional boundaries between the High Court, Waqf Tribunal, and district administration in resolving such contentious matters, as the DM's decision will be critical.

Source: Original reporting via Lawbeat News Desk