Aadhar Cards Not Cogent Evidence To Prove Lawful Occupation Of Public Premises, Procedural Protection Under 1971 Act Not Available: Calcutta High Court

" In absence of any cogent evidence regarding ‘unauthorised occupation’ of the writ petitioners in the aforementioned premises in question, as owned by the respondent authorities, the provisions of section 4 and section 5 of the Act of 1971 have got no manner of application," Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling, held that individuals seeking protection against eviction from public premises must first substantiate their settled possession or authority to occupy.

A bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Sen observed that in the absence of cogent material beyond Aadhar Cards, the statutory procedures for eviction under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, cannot be invoked to stall demolition proceedings by the authorities.

The writ petitioners moved the High Court seeking to quash demolition proceedings initiated by the Kolkata Port Trust (CPT) and Calcutta Dock Labour Board (CDLB) regarding residential quarters at Brook Lane, Garden Reach. The petitioners claimed they were residing in these dwelling units and that the authorities were illegally demolishing the structures without following the mandatory notice and inquiry procedure prescribed under the Act of 1971.

The primary question before the court was whether the respondent authorities were bound to follow the procedures under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1971 before initiating demolition. The court was also called upon to determine if the submission of Aadhar Cards alone was sufficient to establish a status that would entitle the petitioners to the procedural safeguards of the Act.

Court Analyzes Definitions Under Public Premises Act

The Court meticulously examined the definition of "unauthorised occupation" as provided under Section 2(g) of the Act of 1971. It noted that the term refers to occupation by any person without authority, including the continuance in occupation after the authority—whether by grant or transfer—has expired or been determined. The bench emphasized that the application of procedural safeguards is predicated on the establishment of some form of occupation that the law recognizes.

Procedure Under Sections 4 And 5 Explained

Justice Partha Sarathi Sen highlighted that under Section 4, an Estate Officer is required to issue a notice to show cause if they have information that a person is in unauthorised occupation. Similarly, Section 5 empowers the Estate Officer to make an order of eviction only after considering the cause shown and the evidence produced. The Court noted that these sections create a duty for the authorities to act within the framework of the law when dealing with occupiers of public premises.

Aadhar Cards Alone Not Proof Of Authority To Occupy

The Court observed that while the petitioners relied heavily on a "bunch of photocopies of Aadhar Cards" to show their addresses, these did not constitute cogent material to prove actual or authorized occupation of the quarters owned by the respondent authorities. Despite being given a specific opportunity by a coordinate bench to indicate their authority to occupy the premises in a supplementary affidavit, the petitioners failed to do so.

"In course of hearing, despite repeated questions put by this Court, learned advocate for the writ petitioners could not satisfy this Court as to how the writ petitioners came into possession of the aforementioned premises/quarters/dwelling units under the respondent authorities."

Lack Of Evidence Negates Procedural Safeguards

The bench held that the petitioners had miserably failed to substantiate their alleged status as "unauthorised occupants" within the meaning of the Act. The Court reasoned that if a person cannot show any scrap of paper or evidence regarding how they came into possession, they cannot demand that the authorities follow the rigorous notice-and-hearing procedure before removing them from public property, especially when the structures pose a risk.

Imminent Threat To Life And Property

The Court took note of a memo dated May 22, 2025, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Port Division, which warned the Kolkata Port Trust of the "imminent risk of collapse" of the residential quarters. The bench observed that the action of the Port authorities was justifiable given the serious threat to life and property, which the petitioners could not effectively counter with evidence of lawful possession.

Court Distinguishes Precedents Involving Leased Property

The petitioners relied on the Division Bench ruling in Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata vs. Vijay Kumar Arya (2009). However, Justice Sen distinguished the case, noting that in the cited precedent, the Port Authority had originally granted a 30-year lease, which was later revoked. In the present case, there was no underlying lease or grant that could characterize the petitioners' presence as an occupation that the Act intended to protect procedurally.

"The facts, as involved in the case of Vijay Kumar Arya (supra) is quite distinguishable from the facts and circumstances... since despite giving due opportunity... the writ petitioners failed to indicate in their supplementary affidavit regarding their authority to occupy the premises."

The High Court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit as the petitioners failed to cross the threshold of proving their occupation status. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and vacated any interim orders previously granted. The ruling underscores that while the Public Premises Act provides safeguards against arbitrary eviction, such protection is not available to those who cannot substantiate their authority to occupy or their settled position in the property.

Date of Decision: 30 June 2026