Eviction of unauthorized railway land occupants is valid where eligibility for rehabilitation under project-affected schemes is not established.

This batch of 25 writ petitions was filed by residents of various chawls in Malad (East), Mumbai, challenging eviction orders dated January 23, 2025, issued by the Estate Officer of Western Railway.

The petitioners claim to have occupied the subject structures (unauthorised) since 1980.

On August 29, 2022, the Railways issued show-cause notices under Section 5A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, seeking removal of the structures for railway projects.

The petitioners responded on October 13, 2023, claiming protection and rehabilitation under a Government Resolution (GR) dated December 12, 2000.

After considering the replies, the Estate Officer passed the impugned eviction orders.

An appeal to the City Civil Court was dismissed as not maintainable on May 6, 2025.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to rehabilitation as "Project Affected Persons" (PAP) under the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000.

2. 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 regarding the removal of unauthorised constructions.

It relied on the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000, which outlines the Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) policy for the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP).

Furthermore, the Court applied principles from Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India, which requires authorities to follow a special enactment for eviction while considering the liability to provide support to affected persons.

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, regarding the balancing of eviction for public purpose with humanitarian considerations.

The Court observed that while the petitioners claimed protection under the 2000 GR, they failed to produce any evidence demonstrating that their structures were authorized or specifically "project affected".

Crucially, the petitioners admitted in their representations that their structures were located more than 10 meters away from the 6th Railway Line, placing them outside the scope of the specific rehabilitation scheme.

The Court distinguished the Utran Se Besthan case, noting that unlike that case where no procedure was followed, the Railway Authorities here issued statutory show-cause notices under Section 5A(2) and provided a fair hearing before passing orders, thereby satisfying the requirement of "due process".

However, the Court acknowledged that since the structures were on Railway land for decades, the Railways shared responsibility for the situation and must provide limited humanitarian support.

However, invoking humanitarian guidelines, the Court directed: (a) Petitioners must vacate within 60 days;

(b) failing which, the Railways may use police assistance for demolition;

(c) the Collector must record the identity of occupants before eviction to preserve their potential eligibility for future rehabilitation;

and (d) if any existing state/railway scheme applies, the authorities may consider applications for alternative accommodation independently, though petitioners cannot insist on the same locality.

Rule was discharged with no costs.