Unauthorised occupants on public land cannot claim rehabilitation benefits absent proof of project-affected eligibility.

The petitioners are occupants of 25 structures situated on Western Railway land at Malad (East), Mumbai, claiming occupation since approximately 1980.

On August 29, 2022, the Railway Estate Officer issued show-cause notices under Section 5A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, for the removal of unauthorized structures.

The petitioners responded on October 13, 2023, claiming protection under a Government Resolution (GR) dated December 12, 2000, and asserting they were Project Affected Persons (PAP) under the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP).

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

An appeal to the City Civil Court was dismissed as non-maintainable on May 6, 2025, leading to these Writ Petitions.

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

Whether the Estate Officer followed due process of law as mandated by the Supreme Court in *Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India*.

The court applied the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, specifically Section 2(g) defining "unauthorised occupation" and Section 5A, which empowers the Estate Officer to remove unauthorized structures after providing a notice and opportunity to show cause.

Regarding rehabilitation, the court referred to the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000, which sets the "baseline survey" as the cut-off date for R&R eligibility for squatters.

It also relied on Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, which outlines the state's obligation to record occupant details and provide potential support during eviction from public land.

The Court found that the petitioners admitted the structures were unauthorized and failed to produce any evidence proving they were covered by Phase I/II of the MUTP project or situated within 10 meters of the new railway line expansion.

Their own representations stated the structures were beyond the 10-meter project zone, thus disqualifying them from PAP status under the 2000 GR.

Regarding procedural fairness, the Court noted that unlike the Utran Se Besthan case where authorities bypassed legal steps, Western Railway here followed the summary mechanism of the 1971 Act by issuing notices and considering replies before passing the impugned orders.

The Court concluded that since the petitioners did not meet the eligibility criteria for any specific rehabilitation scheme, their occupation remained strictly unauthorized.

However, citing the Railways' "public trust obligation," the Court directed: (a) Petitioners must vacate within 60 days; (b) the Collector must record identity details of occupants before demolition for potential future rehabilitation eligibility; (c) the State/Railways may consider them for alternative accommodation only if found eligible under existing schemes upon verification.

Rule was discharged with no order as to costs.