Unauthorized occupants cannot convert illegal status into legal occupancy without state policy for rehabilitation.

1. Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated January 6, 2022 passed in W.P.A. No.7956 of 2020.

2. Appeal is at the behest of the State of West Bengal and its functionaries.

3. Private respondents as writ petitioners approached the Writ Court seeking, inter alia, rehabilitation at Malda Court premises and a direction for renewal of their licences. They claimed that they are in possession of respective areas in respect of which they were granted licence to occupy. On expiry of such licence they applied for renewal which was not granted.

4. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge directed the State to provide adequate alternative accommodation, commensurate with the proportion of the stalls occupied by the private respondents within a reasonable vicinity, not more than within one kilometer radius around the Malda Court premises within the time specified. In default, private respondents were permitted to claim adequate compensation.

5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that admittedly, the licences of the private respondents expired in the year 2011. He draws the attention of the Court to the pleadings of the writ petition of the private respondents in this regard. He submits that, appellants received communication from the judiciary requiring fencing of the Court premises in order to prevent encroachment. Appellants erected a fence on the property belonging to the judicial department. Appellants acted in terms of orders issued by the judiciary. Appellants did not evict the private respondents.

6. Learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that, none of the private respondents established any right to occupy the Court premises subsequent to the 2011. Licences expired in 2011 and were not renewed. Private respondents are in unauthorized occupation of the Court premises. No right of the private respondents stood infringed by the action of the State in erecting a boundary fence in order to protect the Court premises.

7. Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that, on a portion of the land belonging to the judicial department, a new building was erected in order to house some of the existing Court rooms. He points out that, the direction contained in the impugned judgment and order is unworkable. It also tantamounts to converting an illegal occupation into a legal occupation and that too at the expense of the State.

8. Learned Advocate appearing for the private respondents submits that, all the private respondents were licensees till 2011, whereafter the private respondents applied for renewal of licence and the authorities did not renew the same. He submits that, all the private respondents are engaged in the business of providing support to litigants and advocates with regard to the filing of proceedings in the Court. The services rendered by the private respondents are required for the proper functioning of a Court.

9. Learned Advocate appearing for the private respondents draws our attention to the notice dated July 15, 2014 whereby which the learned District Judge required certain information. In response thereto, the private respondents submitted various documents. He refers to the representations made on behalf of the private respondents to the authorities.

10. Learned Advocate appearing for the private respondents submits that, on February 26, 2020, the State authorities started erecting a fence thereby effectively blocking the ingress and egress of the private respondents to their respective are