Municipal authorities cannot evict occupants claiming prima facie lawful possession except in accordance with law.

The petitioners challenged a public notice dated 27 June 2026 issued by the Executive Engineer (Civil), Borough III, Kolkata Municipal Corporation (“KMC”), concerning warehouses/godown spaces beneath the approach road to Durgapur Bridge in Scheme VII-M.

They relied on a letter dated 14 June 1994 stating that their father’s offer to take the godown space on monthly tenancy had been accepted by the Calcutta Improvement Trust, along with documents issued in the name of the estate of deceased registered tenant Satish Kumar Gupta and trade licences.

The petitioners contended that their occupation was authorised and not illegal.

On 27 July 2026, the Court found a prima facie case and directed that their possession not be disturbed until the next hearing.

The KMDA subsequently acknowledged that the godown space had been let to Satish Kumar Gupta, while pointing out that the tenancy had not been transferred or recorded in the names of his legal heirs.

During the proceedings, KMC produced a report stating that establishments beneath bridges or flyovers should ordinarily not be permitted because they obstruct periodic structural inspections, and that three warehouses had been found during an inspection on 27 June 2026.

Whether the petitioners’ occupation of the godown beneath the bridge was wholly unauthorised so as to justify their eviction pursuant to KMC’s public notice dated 27 June 2026.

Whether the municipal authorities were competent to determine the petitioners’ entitlement to retain possession where the petitioners had shown some authority in favour of their predecessor-in-interest.

Whether the petitioners’ possession could be disturbed without following due process of law, while preserving the authorities’ statutory and public-safety obligations concerning the bridge.

The Court applied the principle that municipal authorities cannot summarily determine disputed tenancy or possessory rights, particularly where the occupant demonstrates prima facie authority or a prior allotment in favour of a predecessor.

Possession may be protected against forcible or unauthorised dispossession and may be disturbed only in accordance with law.

This protection does not prevent the municipality or State from discharging statutory obligations, including obligations relating to the inspection, maintenance, and structural safety of bridges and the taking of appropriate lawful measures to secure the bridge.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the judgment.

The Court treated the 1994 communication, the documents issued in the name of the deceased registered tenant, the trade licence, and KMDA’s acknowledgment that the godown had been let to Satish Kumar Gupta as sufficient to establish that the petitioners’ possession was not prima facie wholly without authority.

Although the tenancy was not shown to stand in the names of the deceased tenant’s legal heirs, the question whether the petitioners were entitled to retain possession required adjudication before an appropriate forum and could not be conclusively decided by the municipal authorities through the impugned public notice.

At the same time, the Court recognised KMC’s concern that structures beneath bridges may obstruct periodic structural inspections and therefore preserved the authorities’ statutory power to take lawful measures for bridge safety.

The petitioners were ordered not to be evicted on the basis of the public notice dated 27 June 2026, and their possession was directed not to be disturbed except in accordance with law.

The order did not restrict the municipality from discharging its statutory obligations or the State from taking appropriate lawful steps to secure the bridge; the protection operated only in relation to the petitioners.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.