Unauthorised occupants on public premises lack a legal right to rehabilitation unless specifically eligible under existing government schemes.

A batch of 25 petitioners challenged eviction orders dated January 23, 2025, issued by the Estate Officer of Western Railway.

The petitioners occupied structures on Railway land in Malad (East), Mumbai, claiming residence 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, for the removal of unauthorized structures.

The petitioners argued they were entitled to rehabilitation under the Government Resolution (GR) dated December 12, 2000, and the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP) policy.

An initial appeal to the City Civil Court was dismissed as non-maintainable on May 6, 2025.

Whether the petitioners qualify as "Project Affected Persons" (PAP) entitled to rehabilitation under the GR dated December 12, 2000, or the MUTP policy.

Whether the Estate Officer followed due process of law as mandated by the Supreme Court in Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Govt. 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 summary removal of unauthorized structures.

It considered the eligibility criteria for Project Affected Persons (PAP) under the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000, which requires occupants to be enumerated during a baseline survey or affected by specific projects.

Furthermore, it relied on the procedural mandates for humane eviction established in Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Govt. of India.

The Court also relied on the rehabilitation guidelines from Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, which balances the right to shelter with public land recovery.

The Court found that while the petitioners claimed long-term occupation, they failed to produce evidence that their structures were authorized or specifically affected by Phase I/II of the MUTP project.

Notably, the petitioners’ own representations admitted their structures were located beyond 10 meters of the 6th Railway Line, placing them outside the project’s immediate scope of rehabilitation.

Regarding procedural fairness, the Court distinguished this case from Utran Se Besthan, noting that the Railways here had invoked the 1971 Act, issued proper show-cause notices, and provided a hearing, thereby satisfying "due process."

However, the Court acknowledged that the Railways shared responsibility for allowing unauthorized encroachments to persist, necessitating a balanced approach toward displacement.

The Court directed that petitioners be granted 60 days to vacate voluntarily.

The Collector must record the identity and profile of the occupants before eviction to preserve their right to apply for any existing State or Railway rehabilitation schemes.

The Authorities must take an independent decision on individual eligibility for alternative accommodation if such schemes apply.

Rule discharged with no order as to costs.