UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS OF PUBLIC FOOTPATHS LACK STANDING TO CHALLENGE REMOVAL ORDERS ABSENT PROOF OF LEGAL RIGHT.

The petitioners in WPA 1930 of 2025 (a club) challenged an order dated January 10, 2025, issued by the Executive Engineer (C), Borough-IX of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), which directed the removal of an unauthorized structure encroaching upon the footpath at 49/2/G, Karl Marx Sarani.

The club asserted its legitimacy by citing its involvement in government-sponsored projects and Durga Puja celebrations.

Previously, Prem Chand Jaiswal (Petitioner in WPA 17382 of 2025) had moved the Court regarding the KMC's inaction against this encroachment, which obstructed access to his weighbridge facility.

Following a court directive dated September 25, 2024, the Executive Engineer determined the structure was an unauthorized encroachment on public land and ordered its removal.

1. Whether the petitioners (the Club) have any legal right or authority to occupy public land/footpath and challenge the demolition order.

2. Whether the Executive Engineer, Borough-IX, had the competence and jurisdiction to pass the order for removal of the encroachment.

3. Whether the court should direct the mandatory implementation of the removal order.

The Court applied the principle that unauthorized occupants possess no legal right to retain possession of public premises or footpaths.

Public footpaths cannot be blocked or occupied by private entities without authorized documentation.

The Court upheld the administrative competence of municipal authorities (specifically the Executive Engineer of the relevant borough) to issue and enforce removal orders for encroachments on public spaces under the municipal framework.

The Court noted that while the petitioners claimed social relevance through ICDS projects and religious festivals, they failed to produce any document establishing a legal right or authority to occupy the footpath at 49/2/G, Karl Marx Sarani.

The Court found the petitioners to be "unauthorized occupants" who had no standing to block public access or interfere with the egress and ingress of neighboring premises.

Regarding jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the club's argument that the land belonged to the Kolkata Port Trust, stating that regardless of land ownership, no "scrap of paper" was offered to prove occupancy rights, and a footpath cannot be permitted to be occupied illegally.

The Court concluded that the Executive Engineer acted within his competence to ensure public land remained free of obstructions.

The Court disposed of the second petition by directing the Police authorities to cooperate with the Municipal authorities to ensure the order dated January 10, 2025, is implemented expeditiously, preferably within 10 weeks.