Calcutta High Court: In an application preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking protection of the property and direction with regards to prevention of obstruction of ingress and egress to the petitioners’ office, a single-judge bench comprising of Jay Sengupta, upheld the permission granted by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL&LRO) to the private respondents for conducting Durga Puja, since the private respondents have been conducting Durga Purja on the said land for so many years.
However, the Court directed the private respondents to ensure that the ingress and egress to the petitioners’ office are not blocked during the Durga Puja celebrations. The Court also directed the police to maintain a strict vigil in the locality to prevent any breach of peace.
Factual Matrix
The present case pertains to an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioners sought various directions from the court. The primary prayers included the registration of an FIR based on a written complaint made by the petitioners, protection of their property from the private respondents and their family members, and an order to prevent the obstruction of ingress and egress to the petitioners’ office.
In the instant matter, the land in question was initially vested in a government authority, but by an order dated 02-02-2012, the BL&LRO allocated the said land to Kakdwip Byayam Samity.
The petitioners alleged that the private respondents had been causing disturbances in the locality, leading to multiple complaints by the petitioners, but the police had not taken any action. The private respondents intended to conduct Durga Puja on the land in question, which the petitioners opposed, claiming that necessary permission should be sought from them.
Contentions
The petitioners contended that they are the rightful owners of the land, and the private respondents’ attempts to conduct Durga Puja without their permission constituted an illegal act.
The private respondents argued that they had been conducting Durga Puja on a portion of the land for over a century and had obtained all the required permissions from relevant authorities.
The State submitted a report stating that the private respondents had indeed been conducting Durga Puja on the land for some time, and while permissions were granted, disputes had led to proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
Moot Point
Whether the private respondents had the legal right to conduct Durga Puja on the disputed land, and whether they had obtained the necessary permissions for the same?
Court’s judgment
The Court considered the arguments presented by all parties and made the following observations:
-
The BL&LRO had granted permission to the private respondents to conduct Durga Puja on the disputed land.
-
The private respondents had been conducting Durga Puja on the land for many years, establishing their historical rights to the same.
-
There was no requirement for the private respondents to seek permission from the petitioners to conduct Durga Puja.
-
However, the private respondents were directed to ensure that the ingress and egress to the petitioners’ office were not blocked during the Durga Puja celebrations.
-
The police were instructed to maintain a strict vigil in the locality to prevent any breach of peace.
In light of these observations, the court disposed of the present petition.
[Kakdwip Byayam Samity O Mukul Natya Sandad v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3394, order dated 05-10-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Jay Sengupta
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Mr. Omar Faruk Gazi, Mr. Badrul Karim and Mr. Dipankar Das, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. K.J. Yusuf and Mr. Parikshit Goswami, Counsel for the State
Mr. Kingsuk Mondal, Mr. Pradip Kundu, Mr. Partha Sarathi Mondal and Ms. Antara Das, Counsel for the Respondent 8 to 10
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
