Unauthorised Occupants of Railway Land Ineligible for MUTP Rehabilitation Benefits Absent Proof of Project Impact

This batch of 25 Writ Petitions involves occupants of unauthorized structures located on Western Railway land near Malad (East), Mumbai.

On August 29, 2022, the Estate Officer issued Show Cause Notices under Section 5A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, directing the removal of these structures.

The Petitioners claimed they had occupied the premises since 1980 and were entitled to rehabilitation under a Government Resolution (GR) dated December 12, 2000, and the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP).

On January 23, 2025, the Estate Officer passed eviction orders.

The City Civil Court subsequently dismissed their appeals as non-maintainable on May 6, 2025, leading to the present petitions.

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

Whether the Estate Officer followed due process of law in passing the eviction orders under the Act of 1971.

The court primarily applied Sections 2(e), 2(g), and 5A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which define "public premises" and "unauthorised occupation" and empower the Estate Officer to remove unauthorized constructions after following the summary procedure.

The court also applied the eligibility criteria for Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) as defined in the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000.

It further relied on the Supreme Court's principles in *Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Govt. of India*, regarding the duty of authorities to follow due process even for unauthorized occupants.

The court also relied on *Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan*, concerning the human aspect of evictions.

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

The Court found that the Petitioners failed to produce evidence demonstrating that their structures were affected by the MUTP project or fell within the 10-meter proximity of the 6th Railway Line project, which would have granted them PAP status.

Even their own representations stated they were located beyond the project’s 10-meter boundary.

Regarding due process, the Court distinguished this case from *Utran Se Besthan* by noting that unlike the summary removals in that precedent, the Railway Authorities here issued formal Show Cause Notices and provided an opportunity for hearing, thereby complying with the statutory mandate of the Act of 1971.

However, citing the shared responsibility of the Railways in allowing long-term unauthorized occupation, the Court granted the Petitioners 60 days to vacate.

It directed the Collector to record the identities of the occupants before eviction for future eligibility verification under any general state rehabilitation schemes.

The Court clarified it expressed no view on the grant of such benefits, leaving it to the authorities' independent decision.