Mr. Ulhas Ladu Kepkar and Ors. vs State of Goa and Ors.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, matter is heard finally at admission stage.

The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated 20.08.2025 passed by respondent no.3-Deputy Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pernem, Goa under Section 164(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS, 2023’) in Case No.MAG/SDM/PER/164/04/2025, whereby parties are directed to follow rotational system for performance of rituals during annual religious festivals.

The dispute pertains to performance of rituals during annual religious festivities in family of petitioners and respondent nos.4 to 11. The House No.32 situated at Girkarwada, Arambol, Pernem-Goa was ancestral residential place. The petitioners and respondent nos.4 to 11 have equal rights in said house. The petitioners and respondent nos.4 to 11, since time of their ancestors, were jointly performing festivals and rituals together in said house. In year 2022, differences crept in between petitioners and respondent nos.4 to 11 during Ganesh Chaturthi Festival. In year 2025, respondent nos.4 to 11 and petitioner no.3 lodged complaints against each others with respondent no.2 narrating respective versions as to rights of performing rituals. The respondent no.2 registered Chapter Case No.11/2025 under Section 164 of BNSS, 2023 and forwarded report to Deputy Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate/respondent no.3, who initiated proceeding vide Case No.MAG/SDM/PER/164/04/2025. Eventually, notices were issued under Section 164 of BNSS, 2023 calling both parties to put in written statement of their claim as to actual possession of subject house. The parties were called upon to visit office of respondent no.3 on 20.08.2025 at 10.00 am. The petitioner nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 appeared before respondent no.3. Eventually, respondent no.3 passed impugned order, which records that parties settled their terms of compromise and agreed to follow rotational system for performance of rituals during annual religious festival.

Mr. Jatin Ramaiya, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that respondent no.2 has erroneously assumed jurisdiction without complying mandatory requirements of passing preliminary order under Section 164(1) of BNSS, 2023. Further petitioners were coerced to agree upon terms of settlement. The petitioner nos.2 and 7 were not before respondent no.3. In their absence, consent order could not have been validly passed.

Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for respondents submits that petitioners and respondent nos.4 to 11 are representing three branches of one and same ancestor. The petitioner no.2, 3 and 4 represents branch of late Namdev Ladu Kepkar and petitioner no.7 represents branch of Ulhas Ladu Kepkar. The family members amicably settled dispute before respondent no.3. The petitioner nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, who are representatives of their three branches have signed terms of compromise. In view of aforesaid settlement under order dated 20.08.2025 petitioners performed all rituals and filed present petition in month of October-2025 when turn on rotation to perform rituals was to commence for other branches.

Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, undisputedly House No.32, Survey No.60/4 of village Arambol, Taluka Pernem is ancestral residential house of petitioners and respondent nos.4 to 11 where their ancestors were celebrating festivals and performing rituals. Even generations of petitioners and respondent nos.4 to 11 continued said practice without demur till year 2022 when first time differences erupted amongst them. It is contention of petitioners that after 2022 for last three years they are performing rituals and celebration of festival in said house. The respondent nos.4 to 11 disputes exclusive claim of petitioners to perform rituals and festivals in ancestral house. The dispute was taken to police by rival complaints from which proceeding under Section 164 of BNSS, 2023 emanates.

The impugned order passed by respondent no.3 depicts that it is passed by consent of parties. The roznama depicts signatures of parties except petitioner nos.2 and 7. As rightly pointed out by learned Advocate appearing for respondents, petitioner nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and respondent nos.4 to 11 have signed terms of settlement recorded in minutes of order. Although petitioner nos.2 and 7 are not signatories, father of petitioner no.7 Ulhas Ladu Kepkar and real brother and sisters- in-law of petitioner no.2, who represents their respective branches have signed compromise of settlement. As per terms of settlement, rotational system for performance of rituals during annual religious festivals is set up and each of branch is given equal right by way of rotation to perform ritual and religious festivities. Apparently, equitable solution has been devised by consent of parties which was made operational by petitioners themselves, who took first chance in rotation.

Although it is sought to be contended before this Court that signatures of petitioners were obtained by coercion, time gap between date of order and filing of present Writ Petition suggests that such plea is raised afterthought, when turn of other branch was to be given effect as per rotational system.

The learned Advocate appearing for petitioners relying upon decision of this Court in case of Noberto Paulo Sebastiao Fernandes Vs. Pankaj Vithal Tari Volvoikar and Others^{11.2026 SCC OnLine Bom 4627.} submits that respondent no.3 committed acts of irregularities or errors in exercise of jurisdiction without following procedure as stipulated by Section 164 of BNSS, 2023 itself. However, this argument was good if Magistrate would have passed order on merit. This Court do not find any reason to delve into technical aspects of jurisdiction to be exercised under Section 164 of BNSS, 2023, as impugned order is passed on consensus of parties.

Pertinently, order under Section 164 of BNSS, 2023 neither creates right nor it prevents parties from resorting appropriate remedy before Civil Court seeking declaration of their rights alongwith consequential reliefs. The purpose of Section 164 of BNSS, 2023 is to make provisional arrangement so as to maintain peace and sanctity or prevent breach of peace concerning dispute over land, water, boundaries etc..

In light of aforesaid legal and factual backdrop, this Court finds no reason to entertain present Writ Petition invoking extraordinary power under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

In result, Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Needless to state here that, petitioners shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy for declaration of their rights, which according to them have been prejudiced, by operation of impugned order.

Rule stands discharged.