Tea Garden Workers Cannot Be Evicted For Land Port Project Without Following Due Process Of Law: Calcutta High Court

A Calcutta High Court vacation bench has clarified that authorities cannot evict occupants, even if they are alleged to be unauthorised occupants of government land, without following due process of law. The Court observed that the right to equal protection of law extends to everyone, irrespective of whether they live in palaces or shanties, and that people living in shanties are even more dependent on judicial protection.

The Court made these observations while hearing a plea concerning the apprehended eviction of tea garden workers and other occupants from land proposed to be handed over for the construction of a Land Port.

Emphasising that the progress of a public project cannot be used as a justification for disregarding existing laws, the Court clarified that it was not restraining the authorities from proceeding with the project. However, if any structure was sought to be demolished or any person was sought to be evicted, the authorities would have to follow the procedure prescribed by law.

"Those living in shanties or palaces are entitled to equal protection. In shanties even more, because they don't have anyone else to look forward to," the Court observed.

During the hearing, the State disputed the allegation that any eviction was contemplated, submitting that the occupants were holding dharnas and obstructing the project work. It also informed the Court that an FIR had been registered suo motu and arrests had been made in connection with the alleged disturbances.

The Court, however, pointed out that the State's own report acknowledged that the persons concerned were residing on the land. It observed that even if the occupation was unauthorised, the authorities could not remove the occupants without following due process of law.

When the State argued that the persons concerned were occupying government land unauthorisedly, the Court remarked that such a situation would itself constitute a case requiring eviction proceedings in accordance with law.

Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the persons concerned were tea garden workers.

The Court also questioned the use of bulldozers in the context of the protests, asking the State, "You cannot bring a bulldozer to a dharna. You are using a bulldozer to remove people sitting on dharna?"

When the State described the expression as a "catchy word", the Court responded that there were "catchy pictures also".

The State further contended that the persons concerned could not claim protection unless they were established to be occupants. The Court reiterated that its only concern was that no person could be evicted without following the procedure established by law.

"Even if it is a public project, law has to be followed. We are not stopping the project," the Court observed.

Drawing attention to the need for a level playing field, the Court remarked that persons who were born with a "golden spoon" could not be considered to be at the same starting point as those struggling for basic necessities, adding that courts were required to act as "levellers of the field".

While dictating its order, the Court observed:

"Proceeding with the project cannot be equated with flouting of existing laws. In the event any structure is sought to be demolished and any person is sought to be evicted, there are laws which have to be complied with by the authorities."

It further clarified that there was no conflict between the continuation of the project work and adherence to due process of law.

The Court also made it clear that its observations would have no bearing on the FIR registered by the authorities, which would take its own course.

Accordingly, the respondents were permitted to continue with the project, subject to adherence to due process of law. The Court clarified that if any occupants were ultimately required to be evicted, the authorities would have to take recourse to the procedure prescribed by law.

The Court added that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, which would remain open for consideration before the regular bench.