Court Clarifies that University Authorities Cannot Evict Unauthorized Occupants Using Police Force Without Legal Proceedings; Electricity Disconnection Issue Left to Writ Court
In a significant decision dated September 16, 2026, the Calcutta High Court (Division Bench) delivered a judgment in the matter of Tapan Panda and others versus the State of West Bengal and others, addressing the legality of eviction proceedings initiated by Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya against alleged unauthorized occupants of its residential quarters.
The appellants, retired employees residing in university quarters, challenged a notice issued on June 10, 2026, by the University authorities directing them to vacate the premises. The notice ominously stated that failure to comply would lead to "forcible eviction of the unauthorized occupants" with assistance from the district police administration. The appellants contended that such language created a reasonable apprehension of eviction by force without following due process of law.
The Court acknowledged the appellants' concerns and clarified the legal position under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The Court observed that the notice served by the University was a preliminary step to eviction proceedings, permissible under Section 4(1) of the Act, which requires a lawful process to be followed. However, the Court found the terms "forcible eviction" and involvement of police in the notice to be inconsistent with the requirement of due process.
Importantly, the Court held that the University authorities are not entitled to carry out any forcible eviction without initiating proper legal proceedings. This means that any eviction must be preceded by an order of a competent authority and cannot be executed merely on the basis of an administrative notice or with police assistance unless mandated by law.
Regarding the electricity disconnection, which the appellants also challenged, the Court noted that since the electricity supply had already been disconnected by the time of hearing, the prayer for interim relief on this issue became infructuous. Nonetheless, the Court granted liberty to the appellants to approach the writ court for appropriate remedies concerning the disconnection, if they are legally entitled to do so.
The Division Bench comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Sandip Kumar De dismissed the appeal against the refusal of interim relief but issued directions emphasizing strict adherence to due process of law in eviction matters involving public premises.
This ruling upholds the fundamental legal safeguard that eviction, especially involving residential premises, cannot be undertaken arbitrarily or by force. It reiterates that authorities must comply with statutory procedures to protect occupants' rights, even if they are unauthorized.
Bottom Line:
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
Statutory provision(s):
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 Section 4(1)
Tapan Panda v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2980664
