Aadhaar Card Constitutes Prima Facie Proof Of Occupation; Demolition Without Notice Illegal: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that while an Aadhaar Card is not conclusive proof of residence or title, it constitutes prima facie evidence of occupation for the purpose of invoking the safeguards available under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.Allowing an intra-court appeal, a Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice...
The Calcutta High Court has held that while an Aadhaar Card is not conclusive proof of residence or title, it constitutes prima facie evidence of occupation for the purpose of invoking the safeguards available under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Allowing an intra-court appeal, a Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya restrained the Syama Prasad Mookherjee Port (formerly Calcutta Port Trust) from carrying out demolition or eviction of residents from Calcutta Dock Labour Board (CDLB) and Calcutta Port Trust (CPT) quarters at Brooke Lane, Garden Reach, Kolkata, without first following the statutory procedure prescribed under the 1971 Act.
The Bench clarified that public authorities cannot bypass the eviction mechanism under the Act merely because they consider the occupants to be unauthorised or because the structures are allegedly dilapidated.
"The demolition drive sought to be carried out by the respondent-Authorities is held to be unlawful and ought to be halted," the Court held.
Background
The appellants had challenged a demolition drive initiated by the Syama Prasad Mookherjee Port in respect of residential quarters occupied by them. Their writ petition had earlier been dismissed by a Single Judge on the ground that they had failed to establish how they came into possession of the premises and that the documents produced, including Aadhaar Cards, did not sufficiently prove occupation.
Before the Division Bench, the appellants argued that they had produced Aadhaar Cards, Voter Identity Cards and gas connection bills, which prima facie established their occupation of the premises. They contended that before evicting or demolishing the structures, the Port Authorities were statutorily required to issue notices under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises Act and provide them an opportunity of hearing.
The Port Authorities, however, argued that Aadhaar Cards could not be treated as proof of occupation since the address mentioned therein is based on documents furnished by applicants and is not physically verified. They also contended that the buildings were in a dangerous and dilapidated condition requiring immediate demolition.
Aadhaar Card Is Sufficient For Prima Facie Proof
Rejecting the Port Authorities' contention, the Division Bench distinguished between conclusive proof and prima facie proof.
The Court observed that although earlier judicial precedents had held that an Aadhaar Card is not conclusive proof of identity, address, domicile or citizenship, those decisions did not prevent it from being relied upon as prima facie evidence of occupation.
The Bench said: "Even if an Aadhaar Card is not conclusive proof of residence, it is definitely a prima facie proof of occupation in respect of a property."
It noted that the Aadhaar Act requires verification of demographic information, including address, before issuance of an Aadhaar number. Further, the Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations recognise several documents such as Voter Identity Cards, gas connection bills and electricity bills as valid proof of address. Since the appellants had produced such documents, they had furnished sufficient prima facie material to establish occupation for the limited purpose of attracting the protections under the Public Premises Act.
The Court also rejected the argument that only persons in "settled occupation" are entitled to protection under the Act. It held that Section 2(g) defining "unauthorised occupation" contains no such qualification and covers even rank trespassers if they are in occupation of public premises.
Due Process Under Public Premises Act Mandatory
The Bench emphasised that Sections 4 and 5 of the 1971 Act create a mandatory two-stage procedure before eviction.
First, the Estate Officer must issue a notice calling upon the alleged unauthorised occupant to show cause. Thereafter, only after considering the explanation, evidence and granting an opportunity of personal hearing can an eviction order be passed.
According to the Court, these statutory safeguards cannot be dispensed with merely because the authority believes the occupation is unauthorised.
The Bench held that since the Port Authorities had issued no notices and undertaken no adjudication under Sections 4 and 5, the demolition and eviction exercise was "palpably illegal and de hors the law."
Port Has No Power To Demolish Buildings Under 1971 Act
The Court further held that the Public Premises Act does not confer upon Port Authorities any power to demolish existing buildings merely because they are in a dangerous condition.
It explained that Sections 5A, 5B and 5C deal only with demolition of unauthorised constructions and have no application where authorised structures belonging to the Port are occupied by alleged unauthorised occupants.
The Bench observed that if buildings are structurally unsafe, action may be taken by competent municipal authorities under the applicable municipal laws, but such power cannot be exercised by the Port Authorities under the Public Premises Act.
Port's Own Records Showed Occupation
The Court also found that the Port Authorities' own documents contradicted their stand that the premises were vacant.
Official correspondence placed on record described the property as comprising 502 residential quarters housing nearly 8,000 residents. Yet, the Port Authorities failed to produce any notice issued to those occupants under the Public Premises Act. Even the alleged public notice pasted near the premises was unsupported by any proof.
Holding that the demolition drive violated both statutory requirements and principles of natural justice, the Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge's decision, restrained further demolition or eviction, and clarified that the Port Authorities remain free to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises Act.
Case Title: Md. Idrish & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: W.P.A. No.12272 of 2026