Retention Of Property By State After Lease Expiry Violates Article 300A: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction, Imposes 50K Cost

The Calcutta High Court has held that the State cannot continue to occupy private property once the lease has expired and the requisition order has been quashed, observing that such continued occupation would amount to an illegal deprivation of property.

The Court further imposed personal costs of ₹50,000 on the Director of the concerned State Directorate for resisting compliance with earlier court orders.

A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya made the observations while upholding an order directing the eviction of a State Directorate from private premises and the appointment of an arbitrator to determine compensation payable to the owner.

The dispute arose after the State government had initially taken possession of the petitioner's property on the basis of a lease agreement. Subsequently, the authorities issued a requisition order to continue occupying the premises.

The requisition was later quashed by the High Court, yet the State authorities continued to retain possession of the property even after the expiry of the lease period.

Aggrieved by the continued occupation, the property owner approached the High Court seeking eviction of the Directorate and enforcement of earlier orders.

The Bench held that once the requisition order was set aside and the lease had expired, the State had no legal authority to remain in possession of the premises.

The Court noted that the State's continued occupation would effectively deprive the owner of their property without authority of law, which is impermissible under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

The Bench observed that the government cannot rely on procedural objections or technical pleas to justify retaining possession of private property.

The Court also rejected arguments raised by the State questioning the maintainability of the writ proceedings and the limitation aspect.

Taking serious note of the conduct of the authorities in resisting compliance with court orders, the Bench imposed personal costs of ₹50,000 on the Director of the Directorate concerned.

The Court observed that public officials cannot take shelter behind the State machinery to delay or frustrate judicial directions.

The High Court upheld the order directing the State Directorate to vacate the premises and affirmed the appointment of an arbitrator to determine the compensation payable to the property owner for the period of occupation.

The Court reiterated that the State must act fairly and within the bounds of law when dealing with private property rights.

Case: Transportation, Planning and Traffic Engineering Directorate, Government of West Bengal, Transport Department Vs. M/s. Maharshi Commerce Limited and Others

Case No: M.A.T. No. 1134 of 2025

Click here to read order