Calcutta HC: Aadhaar can prove occupancy, not necessarily residence

Calcutta High Court ruled on Tuesday that even though Aadhaar was not 'conclusive' proof of residence, it was still 'prima facie' proof of occupation of a property. This happened when the court ordered Calcutta Port Trust not to demolition alleged old buildings in the Garden Reach locality.

People living in 52 quarters, dwelling units and structures belonging to Calcutta Dock Labour Board quarters and Calcutta Port Trust first appealed before the division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya against an earlier ruling by a single bench which allowed the port to demolish 33 structures on its property.

Read More: CJP Protest in Delhi LIVE: SC declines plea against police, 16 metro stations shut as party warns of larger agitation


They said that some people have provided their Aadhar cards and others had documents like gas connections bills and voters’ ID cards. The port authority claimed that among the 52 residents, only 22 provided their Aadhar cards and so the earlier decision was justified to hold that “no proof of occupation” was supplied.

According to the division bench,“Aadhaar card is not a proof of citizenship or domicile, does not invalidate it, per se, as a proof of mere occupation of premises," further mentioning that “conclusive” and “prima facie” concepts are totally different.

While the first group refers to the last word and finality, the second one is referred to mere preliminary assessment. “Even if an Aadhaar card is not conclusive proof of residence, it is definitely a prima facie proof of occupation in respect of a property," it was stated.

Read More: World is 'extremely turbulent', Foreign Minister Jaishankar calls for deeper India-ASEAN cooperation

Also, the bench was probing the question on whether the Port authorities could undertake demolition drive or not. It was explained that the demolition authorities can exercise their powers on “unauthorised constructions”, and not on “authorised constructions with unauthorised occupants”.

Even if the premises were allegedly in a dilapidated or dangerous condition, it was for the municipal authorities, not the port authorities, to initiate any demolition process, the High Court held. It observed that the authorities could not demolish their own structures "on the ground of dilapidation or dangerous condition."

The court also noted that the residents were not given an opportunity to be heard before the demolition. "The so-called demolition drive initiated by the SPMP (Port) is palpably unlawful, de hors the law and violative of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity has been given to the appellants to show cause or be heard or to produce evidence in support of their stance regarding the said premises," the HC said.