Due process in evicting unauthorized occupants on railway land bars immediate rehabilitation without proven project-affected eligibility.

The Petitioners, occupants of various structures on Western Railway land in Malad (East), Mumbai, challenged eviction orders dated January 23, 2025, issued by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

The structures were flagged as unauthorized and located near the 6th Railway Line project

On August 29, 2022, the Estate Officer issued show-cause notices under Section 5A(2) of the Act

The Petitioners responded on October 13, 2023, claiming protection and rehabilitation benefits under a Government Resolution (GR) dated December 12, 2000, and Supreme Court precedents, asserting they had occupied the sites since 1980

After the Estate Officer ordered eviction, the Petitioners’ appeal to the City Civil Court was dismissed as non-maintainable on May 6, 2025, leading to the present Writ Petitions

Whether the Petitioners qualify as "Project Affected Persons" (PAP) entitled to Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits under the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000

Whether the Estate Officer followed the due process of law as mandated by the Supreme Court in Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India

The court primarily applied the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, specifically Section 2(g) defining "unauthorised occupation" and Section 5A, which empowers the Estate Officer to remove unauthorized structures after providing a notice to show cause

It referred to the Government Resolution dated 12th December 2000, which outlines the eligibility for R&R benefits for Project Affected Persons (PAP) involved in the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP)

Furthermore, it relied on Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Govt. of India, emphasizing the duty of Railway Authorities to follow due process before eviction

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, regarding the humanitarian obligation to record identities of evictees for potential future rehabilitation

The Court observed that the Petitioners admitted their structures were unauthorized and situated on Railway land

While the Petitioners sought protection under the 2000 GR, the Court found they failed to produce evidence proving their structures were "project-affected" or situated within the 10-meter zone of the 6th Railway Line; in fact, their own representations stated they were beyond 10 meters

Regarding procedural fairness, the Court distinguished this case from Utran Se Besthan, noting that the Railway Authorities had strictly adhered to the Act of 1971 by issuing show-cause notices and providing a hearing, thereby satisfying "due process"

The Court concluded that since the Petitioners did not meet the specific eligibility criteria for MUTP phases, they could not claim a legal right to rehabilitation as a precondition to eviction

However, citing the Railways' share of responsibility for long-term encroachments, the Court invoked equitable principles to grant a grace period and direct the Collector to record the occupants' data for any future applicable schemes

The Court ordered the Petitioners to vacate the premises within 60 days

It authorized the Western Railways to use police assistance for forced dispossession if the deadline is not met

Crucially, the Court directed the Collector to record and preserve the identities and profiles of the occupants before demolition to determine their eligibility for any general State or Railway rehabilitation schemes in the future

Rule discharged