Kolkata: Even if Aadhaar is not “conclusive” proof of residence, it is “prima facie” proof of occupation of a property, Calcutta High Court on Tuesday held while restraining the Calcutta Port Trust from demolishing alleged dilapidated buildings in the Garden Reach area.A total of 52 residents of quarters, dwelling units and structures — Calcutta Dock Labour Board quarters and Calcutta Port Trust quarters — appealed before the division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya against the order of a single bench that did not interfere with the port’s decision to demolish 33 structures on its land.Their case was that some have provided Aadhaar cards and others have produced documents like gas supply bills and voter’s Id cards. But the Port authorities contended that out of 52 only 22 produced their Aadhaar cards and the single bench was justified to hold that “no proof of occupation” was supplied.But the division bench held: “Aadhaar card is not a proof of citizenship or domicile, does not invalidate it, per se, as a proof of mere occupation of a premises,” adding that “conclusive” and “prima facie” are diametrically opposite concepts. Whereas the former has a sense of finality, the latter is merely a 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 noted.The bench was also considering whether the Port authorities could have undertaken the demolition drive at all. It was detailed that demolition power of the authorities are only for “unauthorised constructions” and not “authorised constructions which are occupied by unauthorised occupants”. In this case, the properties belonged to the Port authorities and are not unauthorised constructions by the residents.Even if the ground of dilapidation of the premises is the reason, it is the municipal authorities who could have initiated the demolition process, HC held, adding they could not have demolished their own structures “on the ground of dilapidation or dangerous condition”.It was also noted that the residents were not given an opportunity of a hearing. “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.
