The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by residents seeking to stop the demolition of residential quarters at Brook Lane in Garden Reach, Kolkata. The Court held that the petitioners failed to produce convincing evidence showing they were legally occupying the premises, making the protections under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 inapplicable.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Md. Idrish and others, challenged the demolition process initiated in respect of Calcutta Dock Labour Board (CDLB) and Calcutta Port Trust (CPT) quarters at Brook Lane. They argued that the authorities had begun demolition without following the procedure prescribed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Relying on Aadhaar cards showing the addresses of the petitioners, they claimed to be residing in the quarters. They also contended that before evicting any person from public premises, the Estate Officer must first issue a notice and follow the procedure under Sections 4 and 5 of the 1971 Act. A supplementary affidavit identifying the portions allegedly occupied by each petitioner was also placed before the Court.
The Kolkata Port Trust opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioners had not produced a single document establishing any legal authority or recognised occupation of the quarters. The Port authorities also referred to a communication from the Deputy Commissioner of Police highlighting the imminent risk of collapse of the buildings and the threat posed to life and property.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Justice Partha Sarathi Sen examined the definition of "unauthorised occupation" under Section 2(g) of the 1971 Act along with the statutory procedure contained in Sections 4 and 5.
The Court noted that although the petitioners relied on Aadhaar cards and later identified the portions they claimed to occupy, they were unable to explain the basis of their possession despite repeated questions from the Bench.
Observing the lack of supporting material, the Court said,
"Apart from photocopies of the said bunch of Aadhar Cards, no cogent materials could be placed before this Court that the writ petitioners are actually occupying and/or residing in the residential quarters/dwelling units/structures."
The Bench further observed that the petitioners had failed to establish even their alleged unauthorised occupation of the premises. It held,
"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 ruling in Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata v. Vijay Kumar Arya, noting that the earlier case involved a lessee whose lease had been revoked, whereas the present petitioners had failed to show any authority to occupy the premises at all.
Finding no merit in the challenge, the High Court dismissed W.P.A. 12272 of 2026, vacated the interim order, and made no order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Md. Idrish & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.A. 12272 of 2026
Judge: Justice Partha Sarathi Sen
Decision Date: 30 June 2026
