Shreepad Gadre & Anr. vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors.

SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.:

Matter is heard at length in presence of learned advocates representing petitioners, State respondents and respondent nos.5 & 7.

Pursuant to the order dated 9^th October, 2026, Inspector-in-Charge, Khardah Police Station, Barrackpore Police Commissionerate being respondent no.4 has served notices upon respondent nos.5, 6 & 7 on 9^th October, 2026. Copies of those notices containing acknowledgments on behalf of respondent nos.5, 6 & 7 are filed today and same are taken on record.

Petitioners being the Trustees of a public charitable Trust, namely, Panihati Unnoyan Trust, have approached this Court with the present writ petition, inter alia, praying for direction upon the concerned police authority not to grant permission for performing Durga Puja by Garh Bhabani Sarbojanin Durgotsav Committee being respondent no.5.

Mr. Debabrata Ray, learned advocate representing petitioners has submitted that the land in question was purchased by petitioners on which Durga Puja is being performed. Therefore, bereft of permission to be accorded by petitioners respondent no.5 is not authorized to perform Durga Puja and concerned police authority is also to be directed not to grant permission. In respect of such contention reliance is placed on the order dated 15^th January, 2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2^nd Court, Barrackpore on Title Suit No.188 of 2017 which was instituted by respondent no.6. It is further submitted that no interim relief was granted by the Civil Court vide order dated 15^th January, 2025. Therefore, according to petitioners, no right accrues in favour of respondent nos.5 & 6 to perform Durga Puja.

Moreover, against said order dated 15^th January, 2025 an appeal being Title Appeal No.19 of 2025 was preferred by respondent no.6 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1^st Court, Barrackpore and as such according to the petitioners, no right is conferred on either respondent no.5 or respondent no.6 to occupy the land in question on which Durga Puja is being performed.

It is further submitted that since said land is purchased by the petitioners from the erstwhile owners, petitioners have right to reject claim of respondent no.5 to organize Durga Puja on the said land by denying permission. In support of such contention reliance is placed on the order of a co-ordinate Bench dated 30^th September, 2019 passed on a writ petition being WPA 19465 of 2019 (Subhas Chandra Bose & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). In addition thereto reliance is also placed on an order of Hon’ble Division Bench dated 29^th July, 2025 passed on an intra-court appeal being MAT 542 of 2025 (M/s Bibhuti Bhusan Dutt Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.).

Mr. Kushal Chatterjee, learned advocate representing respondent nos.5 & 7, on virtual mode, submits that Title Suit being no.258 of 2015 was filed by the present petitioners wherein an application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the writ petitioners/plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint. It is also contended on behalf of respondent nos.5 & 7 that another application was filed by respondent no.7 in Title Suit No.258 of 2015 seeking necessary permission to organize Durga Puja on the land in question. According to respondent nos.5 & 7, an order was passed on the aforesaid application, preferred by defendant/ respondent no.7 herein, on 7^th October, 2015 by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 4^th Court, Sealdah thereby permitting respondent no.7 to perform Durga Puja for the year 2015.

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that subsequently, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4^th Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.258 of 2015 vide order dated 9^th October, 2015 directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of possession of the suit property as on that date till disposal of the instant suit.

It is further submitted on behalf of respondent nos.5 & 7 that the land in question comprised of 49.8 cottahs, out of which 40 cottahs were transferred by way of sale in favour of present petitioners. Moreover, Durga Puja is being performed on the land in question from 1963 till date without any break.

Secretary of respondent no.6 organization appears in person and it is submitted that respondent no.6 organization is in no way connected to the Durga Puja. Therefore, respondent no.6 has wrongly been arrayed as one of the respondents to this writ petition.

It is true that vide order dated 15^th January, 2025 passed in Title Suit No.188 of 2017, which is preferred by respondent no.6, no interim relief was granted by the Civil Court and said order dated 15^th January, 2025 was not interfered with by the Appellate Court and the appeal preferred by the respondent no.6 was dismissed. However, Title Suit no.188 of 2017 is still pending.

In addition thereto, another suit being Title Suit No.258 of 2015 is pending as on date which was instituted by the petitioners wherein respondent no.7 is defendant. In that suit petitioners prayed for injunction thereby restraining defendants from disturbing possession of the petitioners/ plaintiffs over the land in question. However, in Title Suit No.258 of 2015 Civil Court vide order dated 7^th October, 2015 permitted respondent no.7 to perform Durga Puja for the year 2015 and it appears from the submissions made on behalf of parties, during course of hearing of this writ petition, that from 2015 till 2025 Durga Puja was being performed by respondent no.7 uninterruptedly. Moreover, vide subsequent order dated 9^th October, 2015 Civil Court in Title Suit No.258 of 2015 directed parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property till disposal of the said title suit.

From the above discussions, it appears that as on date two suits are pending — one is Tile Suit No.188 of 2017 preferred by respondent no.6 and another is Title Suit No.258 of 2015 preferred by present petitioners. In Title Suit No.258 of 2015 interim order of injunction dated 9^th October, 2015 directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property still subsists. From the facts narrated above, it transpires to this Court that even after order was passed by the Civil Court on 7^th October, 2015 in Title Suit No.258 of 2015, for a period of ten years respondent no.7 performed Durga Puja and same was accepted by the petitioners without taking any contemporaneous steps thereby approaching the Civil Court or any other appropriate forum.

In Subhas Chandra Bose (supra) co-ordinate Bench in order dated 30^th September, 2019 specifically observed that in revisional application the High Court clarified that no puja can be held at the premises. In M/s Bibhuti Bhusan Dutt Estates Pvt. Ltd. (supra) it was observed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in paragraph 8 that a citizen cannot be prevented from enjoying immovable property or its usufruct on the specious plea that there may be a claim with regard thereto by a person who is not coming forward to make such claim. The case which is being considered by this Court in the present writ petition is completely different from the facts of the aforesaid cases where orders were passed by the co-ordinate Bench and the Hon’ble Division Bench on 30^th September, 2019 and 29^th July, 2025 respectively.

In the present situation considering the pendency of aforesaid two suits, this Court ought not to infer that petitioners are the absolute owners of the land in question on which Durga Puja is being performed. Claim of petitioners over the said land shall be decided in the pending suits qua claims of respondent nos.5 and 6 herein. While deciding writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it would not be an appropriate exercise to be carried out by this Court to decide title over the land in question or respective right of the parties to use the land in view of pendency of civil litigations.

If petitioners find that their right over the land in question is being denied by respondent nos.5 and 6, in that event, petitioners are required to approach Civil Court seeking necessary direction.

Hence, present writ petition is not entertained and same stands dismissed.

However, it is clarified that this Court has not decided respective rights of the parties over the land in question.

Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court.