The Calcutta High Court upheld the eviction of persons who had encroached upon a public road outside the Port Trust Hospital in Kolkata, rejecting the argument that they were entitled to protection under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. The case arose when several individuals were found to have occupied space on the road adjacent to the hospital premises, using it for residential and commercial purposes without any legal right, title or permission from the authority controlling the land. The Port Trust moved for eviction proceedings against the encroachers under the Public Premises Act, which provides a statutory mechanism for removal of unauthorised occupants from public property.
The encroachers challenged the eviction notice and proceedings before the High Court, contending that the road in question was a public thoroughfare and not “public premises” within the meaning of the statute, and that they could not be evicted without alternative accommodation. They also argued that their long residence and livelihood there entitled them to protection under various legal and constitutional provisions, including principles of natural justice and the right to livelihood. The petitioners sought interim orders staying the eviction process and quashing the notices issued by the Port Trust.
The High Court examined the statutory definition of “public premises” under the Public Premises Act and observed that the term was broad enough to cover government land and infrastructure, including roads and thoroughfares maintained by statutory entities. The court noted that the road outside the Port Trust Hospital was under the control and management of the Port Trust, and that unauthorised occupation of such space impeded public access, traffic movement and use of essential facilities. The bench observed that the encroachments were not casual or temporary but involved construction of makeshift structures and commercial activities that interfered with the rights of the public at large.
In considering the petitioners’ arguments, the High Court clarified that the Public Premises Act was enacted to ensure that public land used for government purposes remains free from unauthorised occupation, and that the statute does not exclude roads or similar public infrastructure from its ambit merely because they serve as public thoroughfares. The court held that occupation of such land without legal authority clearly fell within the mischief of the Act and could be dealt with through eviction. The bench also observed that the existence of long residence or commercial activity on the encroached portion did not confer legal title or right, and that such considerations are matters for separate legal adjudication regarding compensation or rehabilitation, not a bar to eviction under the statute.
Regarding the petitioners’ plea for alternative accommodation, the High Court emphasised that such equitable aspects do not confer substantive rights in respect of unauthorised occupation of public property. The court noted that while authorities should act humanely, the legal right to occupy public land cannot be derived from mere residence or economic need. This is especially true where such occupation interferes with public use and statutory obligations of the controlling authority. The bench underscored that eviction under the statutory framework is concerned with removal of unauthorised occupants to protect the public interest, and ancillary humanitarian considerations, if any, may be addressed through separate policy mechanisms rather than in legal challenges to eviction notices.
The High Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition and upheld the impugned eviction proceedings. It directed that the Port Trust may proceed with eviction in accordance with law, and that the petitioners’ grievances regarding rehabilitation or housing, if any, do not confer a right to block or delay the statutory process. The order affirms the principle that encroachers on public land, including roads under statutory control, cannot claim protection under the Public Premises Act to defeat eviction, and that unauthorised occupation of such land must give way to public rights and statutory purposes. The judgment reinforces the authority of statutory bodies to remove encroachments on public infrastructure and clarifies that human hardship does not translate into legal entitlement to occupy government land without lawful sanction.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.