### STATUTORY EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED RAILWAY OCCUPANTS VALID ABSENT ELIGIBILITY UNDER REHABILITATION POLICIES

The Petitioners, occupants of structures on Western Railway land in Malad (East), Mumbai, challenged eviction orders issued by the Estate Officer on January 23, 2025.

The Western Railway had 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 claimed they had occupied the premises since 1980 and were entitled to rehabilitation as "Project Affected Persons" (PAP) under Phase I/II of the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP) and a Government Resolution (GR) dated December 12, 2000.

After the City Civil Court dismissed their appeals as non-maintainable on May 6, 2025, they filed these Writ Petitions.

Whether the Petitioners qualify as Project Affected Persons (PAP) entitled to rehabilitation under the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000.

Whether the Railway Authorities 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(e) defining "public premises," Section 2(g) defining "unauthorised occupation," and Section 5A regarding the summary removal of unauthorized structures.

It also considered the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000, which defines eligibility for Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) based on baseline surveys and project impact.

Procedurally, the court relied on the precedent in *Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India*, which mandates following a special enactment mechanism for eviction.

The court relied on *Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan*, which provides guidelines for humanitarian considerations in evictions.

The Court found that while the Petitioners claimed to be PAPs, they failed to produce any evidence proving their structures were affected by the MUTP railway project or situated within the 10-meter zone of the 6th Railway Line work.

Their own representations admitted they were located beyond the 10-meter project boundary, thus excluding them from the R&R policy eligibility criteria.

Regarding due process, the Court distinguished this case from *Utran Se Besthan* by noting that the Estate Officer had indeed invoked the special enactment (the Act of 1971), issued notices, and provided a hearing before passing the order, thereby satisfying statutory requirements.

However, acknowledging the long-term occupation of the land, the Court held the Railways partially responsible for the situation and applied humanitarian safeguards from the *Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation* case.

Petitioners must vacate within 60 days.

The Collector must record the identity of occupants for future rehabilitation eligibility.

If any general rehabilitation scheme exists, the State/Railways may consider eligible applicants independently, though alternative accommodation need not be in the same locality.

Rule discharged with no order as to costs.