Calcutta HC Dismisses Petition Against Demolition of Port Trust Quarters, Finds No Proof of Occupation
Petitioners could not show how they came to occupy CDLB and CPT quarters at Brook Lane, Garden Reach; Aadhaar cards alone held insufficient to establish possession or authority to occupy public premises.
The High Court of Judicature at Calcutta dismissed a writ petition filed by Md. Idrish and others seeking to halt the demolition of residential quarters at Brook Lane, Garden Reach, Kolkata — occupied under the names Calcutta Dock Labour Board (CDLB) quarters and Calcutta Port Trust (CPT) quarters. Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, sitting singly, found that the petitioners had produced no cogent material to establish either their actual occupation of the premises or any authority by which they came to be in possession. Without proof of “unauthorised occupation” within the meaning of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the procedural protections under that statute — specifically the mandatory notice and hearing requirements under section 4 and section 5 — simply did not arise.
The Dispute Before the Court
The petitioners filed W.P.A. 12272 of 2026 praying for writs to quash the demolition process initiated by the Port Trust authorities against the CDLB and CPT quarters at Brook Lane, Garden Reach. They contended that the respondent authorities had started demolition without following the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1971, amounting to illegal eviction.
In support of their claim to be residents, the petitioners relied on photocopies of Aadhaar cards — pages 26 to 75 of the writ petition — which listed their addresses as the quarters in question. A supplementary affidavit filed on the date of hearing sought to indicate the specific portions of the building occupied by each petitioner.
For the Kolkata Port Trust, senior advocate Mr. Subhankar Nag pointed to a memo dated 22 May 2025 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Port Division, Kolkata. That memo communicated to the Chairman of the Kolkata Port Trust the imminent risk of collapse of the residential quarters at Brook Lane, warning of a serious threat to life and property. On that basis, the Port Trust argued that its action was justified and not open to challenge.
The Legal Framework: Section 2(g), Section 4, and Section 5 of the Act of 1971
The petitioners' entire argument rested on the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Their position was straightforward: even if they were unauthorised occupants of a public premises, the Act requires the Estate Officer to serve a show-cause notice under section 4 before any eviction can take place. Only after considering the cause shown and any evidence produced, and after granting a personal hearing, can an order of eviction be passed under section 5. Demolishing quarters without following this procedure, they argued, was plainly illegal.
Section 2(g) of the Act defines “unauthorised occupation” as occupation of public premises without authority, and includes continued occupation after the authority to occupy has expired or been determined. Sections 4 and 5 together set out a sequence: the Estate Officer must first issue a written notice specifying the grounds of proposed eviction and calling upon the person to show cause within seven days, and must then make an eviction order only after considering the response and conducting a personal hearing if sought.
The petitioners relied on the Division Bench decision in Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Anr. v. Vijay Kumar Arya & Ors., reported at 2009 SCC OnLine Cal. 266 : (2009) 2 CHN 274 (DB), to support the proposition that the Act's procedure is mandatory even for public premises.
Why the Procedural Protections Did Not Apply
Justice Sen's reasoning turned on a prior question: before the protections of section 4 and section 5 can be invoked, a person must first be shown to be in “unauthorised occupation” of the public premises. That threshold was not crossed here.
Despite repeated questions from the Court during the hearing, counsel for the petitioners could not explain how the petitioners came into possession of the quarters. The supplementary affidavit indicated which portions of the building each petitioner claimed to occupy, but it said nothing about the basis or authority for that occupation. A coordinate Bench had directed by order dated 15 June 2026 that the supplementary affidavit should address the petitioners' authority to occupy. That direction went unanswered.
On the Aadhaar cards, the Court found that careful scrutiny of those documents did not disclose any material regarding the alleged occupation or possession of the quarters. Aadhaar cards showing an address are not, by themselves, evidence that the person is actually in occupation of the premises or that they came to be there with any recognisable authority. No other documentary material was placed before the Court.
The Court therefore concluded that the petitioners had “miserably failed to substantiate their alleged 'unauthorised occupation'” in the premises. In the absence of that foundational fact, section 4 and section 5 of the Act of 1971 had no manner of application to the situation.
The precedent in Vijay Kumar Arya was distinguished on facts. In that case, the Port authority had granted a 30-year lease; the lease was subsequently revoked and a notice of eviction issued; and the lessee refused to vacate a public premises within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Act. The relationship between the authority and the occupant was established and documented. Here, no such relationship — lease, licence, or otherwise — was shown to exist between the petitioners and the Port Trust. The factual matrix was held to be entirely different.
Outcome
W.P.A. 12272 of 2026 was dismissed on 30 June 2026. The interim order, if any, was vacated. No order as to costs was made. The Court also recorded that since no affidavit in opposition had been filed by the respondents, the assertions in the writ petition were deemed to have been denied.