Safiya Malik

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging an eviction notice and electricity disconnection order issued against cattle owners operating within city limits. The court held that the petitioners, who were relocated under a state-initiated cattle resettlement project, had no legal right to remain in possession of the premises beyond the stipulated period.

The petitioners, engaged in milk production and cattle rearing, challenged a notice issued on August 27, 2014, directing them to vacate the premises and remove large animals, including cattle. They also sought restoration of their electricity connection, which had been disconnected by authorities. The petitioners contended that their relocation under the Cattle Re-Settlement Project, initiated by the State in 1992, had provided them with vested rights in the land.

Under the scheme, the petitioners and their predecessors entered into bond license agreements with the State Government, which included conditions for payment of electricity bills and a requirement to vacate the premises within one year from the execution of the bond (April 1, 2000 – March 31, 2001). The petitioners argued that since the State continued accepting rent after April 1, 2001, their occupation was legitimized, and the eviction notice was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners stated that they had continuously maintained their cattle sheds and paid dues associated with the premises, and the government’s decision to evict them was abrupt and without proper justification.

The petitioners further alleged that the State deliberately stopped accepting rent after 2016, rendering them unable to comply with their obligations. They asserted that their eviction without due process of law was a violation of natural justice. Additionally, they contended that the State was obligated to provide alternative land for resettlement before issuing an eviction notice.

In support of their claims, the petitioners relied on multiple judicial precedents, including Bhuneswar Prasad & Anr. vs. United Commercial Bank & Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 232, Anil Gupta & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors (MAT 1494 of 2018), Sandhya Das (Khan) & Ors. vs. Manik Banik & Ors. (2011) 1 CHN 741, and Samir Sobhon Sanyal vs. Tracks Trade Pvt. Ltd & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 144.

The State authorities countered these claims by arguing that the petition was not maintainable under writ jurisdiction, as the dispute was contractual in nature. They submitted that the license agreements clearly stipulated a fixed tenure that expired on March 31, 2001. Furthermore, the State stated that the petitioners had no vested right to remain in possession beyond this period under Sections 3, 9 of the West Bengal Cattle Licensing Act, 1959, and Sections 343 and 344 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993. The State also pointed out that continued occupation beyond the contractual period amounted to illegal encroachment and an unauthorized claim over public land.

The State also argued that the decision to issue the eviction notice was a policy measure, making it non-justiciable under writ jurisdiction. In support of this contention, the respondents cited several judicial precedents, including Sadananda Halo and Ors. v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Ors. (2008) 4 SCC 619, State of Gujarat vs. M.P. Charitable Trust, 1994 SCC (3) 552, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Ors. vs. Gayatri Construction Company and Anr (2008) 8 SCC 172, and The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. vs. AMR Dev Prabha & Ors AIR 2020 SC 466.

The court recorded that “where a constitutional right is infringed, filing of a writ petition would ordinarily be the most suitable remedy. However, when the grievance is solely with regard to purely contractual disputes or obligations, then Article 226 is not an appropriate remedy.” It referred to Joshi Technologies International Inc vs. Union of India and Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 728 and Bareilly Development Authority vs. Ajai Pal Singh (1989) 2 SCC 116 to support this principle.

The judgment noted that the petitioners were granted only temporary shelter for cattle, and their occupation was not meant to be perpetual. The bond license agreements expressly stated that the petitioners were required to vacate the premises upon the State's demand. The court further observed that “the temporary arrangement to provide cattle sheds cannot be converted to an absolute right in perpetuity.”

Additionally, the court rejected the argument that continued acceptance of rent by the State post-April 2001 created any vested rights in favor of the petitioners. It referred to Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Ors. vs. Gayatri Construction Company and Anr (Supra) to state that “in the absence of a valid license under section 3 of the West Bengal Cattle Licensing Act 1959, there is no authority which the petitioners have been able to justify to remain in possession.”

The court stated that the eviction notice was a policy decision taken in response to urban planning considerations, making it non-justiciable. It held that “there is no duty to act fairly in contractual disputes of this nature. There is also no question of the respondent State having acted in violation of principles of natural justice.” The court clarified that legal recourse for contract enforcement lies within civil law jurisdiction and not writ proceedings.

The court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of maintainability, affirming that the dispute was of a private civil nature and not amenable to writ jurisdiction. It stated:

“The writ petition fails on the ground of maintainability and the same stands dismissed. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to seek appropriate civil reliefs, if so advised in accordance with law. The State respondents are also at liberty to initiate appropriate steps both in respect of outstanding occupational charges or any dues insofar as unpaid electricity bills are concerned. Any payments made by the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition would stand to the credit of the petitioners. The interim order stands vacated.”

Case Title: Md. Hasmat Ali & Ors. Vs. The Government of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: WPA No. 15988 of 2016
Bench: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur

[Read/Download order]