Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)
Order Date: 19 August 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: IMC Limited & Anr.; Respondents: Board of Major Port Authority of Syama Prasad Mookherjee Port, Kolkata & Ors.
- The writ petition (W.P.O. No. 107 of 2026) challenged a notice dated 24 Feb 2026 issued by Respondent No.3, indicating that the matter would be placed before the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, and that a tender‑cum‑auction for plates D‑136/4/A/1, D‑136/4/A and D‑136/5 should be conducted.
- Lease details:
- Plate D‑136/4/A/1 – 2,738.84 sq m, monthly rent Rs 8,709.51, 20‑year lease effective 15 Feb 1991.
- Plate D‑136/4/A – 5,536.93 sq m, monthly rent Rs 17,607.45, 10‑year lease effective 15 Feb 1991.
- Plate D‑136/5 – 806.23 sq m, leased on “as is where is” basis for 15 years effective 15 Feb 2001.
- Leases expired: D‑136/4/A/1 in 2011, D‑136/4/A and D‑136/5 in 2016. Petitioners sought renewal; respondents did not initiate tender‑cum‑auction.
- Billing dispute: No bills raised until Oct 2019; thereafter bills were issued for the period 15 Feb 2016 to 31 Oct 2019 on the original Schedule of Rates (SoR) instead of the revised SoR dated 31 May 2017. Subsequent bills up to Oct 2022 continued on the original schedule, leading petitioners to claim excess payment of Rs 1,88,37,584 and seek refund with interest.
- Respondents issued demand letters on 4 Mar 2024, 27 Mar 2025 (demanding Rs 1,92,35,329 and Rs 7,17,30,493) and 24 Feb 2026, also directing possession surrender within 30 days.
- Petitioners argued the notice was ultra vires, not within the Estate Officer’s jurisdiction, and violated Clause‑16 of the Land Policy Guidelines for Major Ports, 2014.
- Respondents contended that matters of fact, compensation computation, and rent arrears fall exclusively under the Estate Officer per Section 7 of the 1971 Act.
- The Court cited Clause 16.3 of the 2014 Land Policy Guidelines, which mandates tender‑cum‑auction for leases without automatic renewal and prescribes a three‑times rent compensation for unauthorized occupation.
- Relevant judicial precedents were quoted: Calcutta Dies & Tools Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata (2008), Vijay Kumar Arya v. Board of Trustees (2008), and subsequent Division Bench orders emphasizing the Estate Officer’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the correctness of eviction notices and compensation.
Final Outcome
- The Court held that the High Court is not the appropriate forum for determining factual issues or compensation; such matters must be decided by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act.
- Petitioners were granted liberty to raise all issues, including the claimed excess payment, before the Estate Officer, who will issue a show‑cause notice, consider submissions, and pass an order on eviction, rent arrears, damages and interest.
- The writ petition (W.P.O. No. 107 of 2026) and the accompanying General Application (GA No. 1 of 2026) were disposed of.
- Parties may obtain certified copies of the judgment from the Court’s website.
Topics: Lease Dispute, Public Premises Eviction Act