Unauthorised occupants of railway land lack rehabilitation rights unless specifically eligible under a project-affected scheme.

The Petitioners, residing in various chawls at Malad (East), Mumbai, challenged eviction orders dated January 23, 2025, issued by the Estate Officer of Western Railway.

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

Petitioners initially appealed to the City Civil Court, which dismissed the appeals as non-maintainable on May 6, 2025.

The Petitioners admitted the structures were unauthorized but claimed protection and rehabilitation under a Government Resolution (GR) dated December 12, 2000, and the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP) policy.

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

Whether the eviction process 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 Section 5A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which empowers Estate Officers to remove unauthorized structures after providing a notice to show cause.

It also considered the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000, which defines "Project Affected Persons" (PAP) and eligibility for rehabilitation based on baseline surveys and proximity to railway projects.

The Court referenced *Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India*, which highlights the Railway's obligation to use the 1971 Act for eviction.

The Court referenced *Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan*, specifying guidelines for the removal of encroachments on public land.

The Court found that the Petitioners failed to produce evidence that their structures were authorized or specifically affected by an active MUTP project.

Crucially, the Petitioners’ own representations admitted their structures were located beyond 10 meters of the 6th Railway Line, placing them outside the eligibility zone for MUTP-related rehabilitation.

Regarding procedural fairness, the Court distinguished this case from *Utran Se Besthan* by noting that the Railways had strictly adhered to the 1971 Act by issuing statutory show-cause notices and providing a hearing before passing eviction orders.

While the Court upheld the legality of the eviction, it noted that the Railways shared responsibility for allowing long-term encroachments and thus required the Collector to record the identity of occupants for future eligibility checks under general state rehabilitation schemes.

However, based on humanitarian grounds and judicial precedent, the Court directed the Petitioners to vacate within 60 days.

It ordered the Collector to record and preserve the profiles of the occupants before demolition to determine if they qualify for any other prevalent state rehabilitation schemes, explicitly stating that such rehabilitation (if any) need not be at the same location.

Rule was discharged with no order as to costs.