Mere Aadhaar Cards Showing Address Cannot Prove Occupation Under Public Premises Act: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Halt Demolition
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the proposed demolition of residential quarters at Brook Lane, Garden Reach, holding that the petitioners failed to establish either their occupation of the premises or any authority to remain there.Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held that the procedural safeguards under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)...
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the proposed demolition of residential quarters at Brook Lane, Garden Reach, holding that the petitioners failed to establish either their occupation of the premises or any authority to remain there.
Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held that the procedural safeguards under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971—including issuance of notice and eviction proceedings before the Estate Officer—would arise only where a person first demonstrates that he is in "unauthorised occupation" of the public premises. Since the petitioners failed to discharge that burden, they could not invoke Sections 4 and 5 of the Act.
The Court held: "Apart from photocopies of the said bunch of Aadhaar Cards, no cogent materials could be placed before this Court that the writ petitioners are actually occupying and/or residing in the residential quarters... No materials could be found regarding the alleged occupation and/or possession of the writ petitioners."
Background
The petitioners sought to restrain the authorities from demolishing Calcutta Dock Labour Board (CDLB) and Kolkata Port Trust (formerly Calcutta Port Trust) residential quarters situated at Brook Lane, Garden Reach, Kolkata.
They alleged that the Port authorities had initiated demolition and eviction without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. According to them, no notice had been issued by the Estate Officer before commencing demolition.
To establish their occupation, the petitioners relied primarily upon copies of their Aadhaar cards reflecting the addresses of the quarters in question. They also filed a supplementary affidavit identifying the portions allegedly occupied by each petitioner.
The Kolkata Port Trust opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioners had failed to produce any document showing lawful or even settled occupation of the quarters.
It also relied on a communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Port Division, warning that the residential buildings were in imminent danger of collapse and posed a serious threat to life and property, thereby justifying immediate action.
Court's Findings
The Court examined the definition of "unauthorised occupation" under Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act and the statutory procedure contained in Sections 4 and 5 governing eviction of unauthorised occupants.
Justice Sen noted that although the petitioners had produced Aadhaar cards carrying the addresses of the quarters, they were unable to produce any material explaining how they came into possession of the premises.
The Court observed that despite a specific direction by a coordinate Bench requiring the petitioners to disclose the authority under which they occupied the quarters, they failed to do so. Even during the hearing, counsel for the petitioners could not satisfactorily explain the source of their occupation.
Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners had "miserably failed" to establish even their unauthorised occupation of the public premises.
The Court held that in the absence of evidence demonstrating unauthorised occupation, the procedural protections contained in Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act were not attracted.
It observed: "In absence of any cogent evidence regarding 'unauthorised occupation' of the writ petitioners... the provisions of Section 4 and Section 5 of the Act of 1971 have got no manner of application."
The Court also distinguished the Division Bench decision in Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata v. Vijay Kumar Arya, relied upon by the petitioners. It noted that the earlier case involved a lessee whose occupation under a 30-year lease was undisputed, whereas the present petitioners had failed to establish any authority whatsoever to occupy the premises.
Finding no merit in the writ petition, the Court dismissed the case, vacated the interim order and declined to interfere with the demolition process.
Case Title: Md. Idrish & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: WPA 12272 of 2026