Due Process Under Public Premises Act Validates Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants Ineligible For Rehabilitation Benefits.

A batch of 25 petitioners challenged eviction orders dated January 23, 2025, passed by the Estate Officer of Western Railway.

The petitioners occupy various structures (averred to be held since 1980) on Railway land at Malad (East), Mumbai.

The Railway issued show-cause notices under Section 5A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, on August 29, 2022, asserting the structures were unauthorized.

The petitioners contended they were "Project Affected Persons" (PAP) under the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP) and entitled to rehabilitation per a Government Resolution (GR) dated December 12, 2000.

After their appeals were dismissed by the City Civil Court as non-maintainable on May 6, 2025, they moved the High Court.

1. Whether the petitioners qualify as "Project Affected Persons" (PAP) eligible for Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) under the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000.

2. Whether the Estate Officer followed due process of law as mandated by the Act of 1971 and Supreme Court guidelines in Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal.

The court applied the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, specifically Section 2(g) defining "unauthorised occupation" and Section 5A regarding the removal of unauthorized structures.

The court referred to the eligibility criteria for Project Affected Persons (PAP) under the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000, which requires occupants to be affected by specific sub-projects (MUTP) and enumerated in a baseline survey.

It further relied on Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India, which emphasizes the duty of Railways to follow statutory eviction procedures.

and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, regarding the humane balance between eviction and potential rehabilitation.

The Court found that the petitioners admitted the structures were unauthorized and situated on Railway land.

While the petitioners claimed PAP status, the Court noted they failed to produce evidence that their structures were within 10 meters of the 6th Railway Line or otherwise affected by a specific MUTP project; in fact, their own representations stated the structures were beyond the 10-meter mark.

Therefore, they did not meet the eligibility criteria under the 2000 GR.

Regarding due process, the Court distinguished the present case from Utran Se Besthan, noting that the Railways here explicitly invoked the Act of 1971, issued statutory notices, and provided a hearing before passing orders, thereby fulfilling "due process."

However, the Court acknowledged the Railways' "public trust obligation" and shared responsibility for allowing long-term encroachment, necessitating a transitional period before demolition.

The Court directed: (a) Petitioners must vacate within 60 days.

(b) failure to vacate allows the Railways to use police assistance for demolition.

(c) the Collector must record the identities of occupants prior to eviction to preserve their data for any future eligibility claims under existing State/Railway schemes.

and (d) while no specific rehabilitation was mandated by the Court, the Authorities may independently decide on eligibility under existing schemes if applied for.