Unauthorised Occupants on Railway Land are Ineligible for Rehabilitation Benefits Absent Inclusion in Specific Project Schemes

The Petitioners, occupants of various chawls/structures situated on Western Railway land in Malad (East), Mumbai, challenged eviction orders dated January 23, 2025, issued by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

The Railways initiated these proceedings to remove unauthorized structures via show-cause notices issued on August 29, 2022.

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

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

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

Whether the Estate Officer 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(g) defining "unauthorised occupation" and Section 5A regarding the removal of unauthorized structures.

It relied on the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000, which establishes the Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) policy for the MUTP, including the definition of PAPs and the significance of cut-off dates.

It further applied the principles from Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India, which requires Railway authorities to follow statutory procedures (like the Public Premises Act) before eviction.

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, concerning the human aspect of evicting long-term slum dwellers.

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

Conversely, the Petitioners’ own representations admitted their structures were beyond the 10-meter project zone.

Regarding procedural fairness, the Court noted that unlike the precedent in Utran Se Besthan where no process was followed, here the Estate Officer issued formal notices under Section 5A(2), considered replies, and provided an opportunity for a hearing, thereby satisfying "due process".

However, acknowledging the Railways' long-term inaction in allowing these structures to persist, the Court determined that the authorities bore a secondary responsibility to support the displaced persons.

However, invoking equitable principles, the Court directed the Petitioners to vacate within 60 days.

It ordered the Collector to record the identity of the occupants before demolition to preserve their data for any future eligibility under general state rehabilitation schemes.

The Court clarified that while the Petitioners cannot insist on rehabilitation at the same site, the authorities must consider their applications independently if they meet the criteria of any prevailing general scheme.