Adhaar cards alone are insufficient to prove settled possession for protection under the Public Premises Act.

The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking to quash a demolition process initiated by the Kolkata Port Trust (formerly CPT) and Calcutta Dock Labour Board (CDLB) regarding residential quarters at 2 Brook Lane, Garden Reach, Kolkata

The petitioners claimed to be residents of these public premises, relying on copies of Aadhar Cards to prove occupation

They contended that the authorities were demolishing the structures without following the mandatory eviction procedures under the Act of 1971

Conversely, the Port Trust argued that the structures were at imminent risk of collapse, posing a threat to life, and that the petitioners failed to provide any evidence of settled or lawful possession

1. Whether the petitioners established "unauthorised occupation" within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act of 1971 to entitle them to the protection of statutory eviction procedures

2. Whether the respondent authorities were required to serve notice and conduct proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1971 before proceeding with demolition

Section 2(g) defines "unauthorised occupation" as occupation without authority or the continuation of stay after such authority has expired

Section 4 mandates that an Estate Officer must issue a show-cause notice if there is information regarding unauthorised occupation

Section 5 prescribes the procedure for eviction after considering the occupant's response

The Court distinguished the precedent Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Anr. vs. Vijay Kumar Arya & Ors. (2009), noting it applies where a prior lease or legal authority to occupy had been established and subsequently revoked

The Court found that while the petitioners submitted Aadhar Cards, these documents alone did not substantiate the "authority" under which they occupied the premises, nor did they prove actual possession of specific units

Despite a specific judicial direction on 15.06.2026 to file a supplementary affidavit indicating their authority to occupy, the petitioners failed to provide any cogent evidence or "single scrap of paper" to establish how they came into possession

The Court reasoned that the protections of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1971 are triggered only when a person is an "unauthorised occupant" as defined by the Act; since the petitioners failed to prove the factum of their occupation or the nature of their claim, the statutory procedures did not apply

Furthermore, the Court noted the Port Trust's evidence regarding the "imminent risk of collapse" of the buildings

The Court answered the issues by stating that in the absence of cogent evidence of occupation, the authorities were not bound by the notice requirements of Sections 4 and 5

All interim orders were vacated