Unauthorised occupants on railway land are ineligible for rehabilitation benefits absent proof of project-affected status.

A batch of 25 petitioners, residents of various chawls in Malad (East), Mumbai, challenged eviction orders dated January 23, 2025, issued by the Estate Officer of Western Railway

The petitioners admitted that their structures were unauthorized and situated on Railway land but claimed occupation 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

The petitioners contended they were "Project Affected Persons" (PAP) under the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP) and entitled to rehabilitation per a Government Resolution (GR) dated December 12, 2000

They initially appealed to the City Civil Court, which dismissed the appeals as non-maintainable on May 6, 2025, leading to the present Writ Petitions

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

2. Whether the Estate Officer followed the due process of law and the mandates of the Supreme Court regarding the eviction of slum dwellers from Railway land

The court applied Section 2(e), 2(g), and 5A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which provides a summary procedure for the eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises

It relied on the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000, regarding the Resettlement & Rehabilitation (R&R) policy for the MUTP

It further examined the precedents in Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India, which mandates due process and potential support for evicted persons

and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, which outlines guidelines for the removal of encroachments while respecting the right to shelter

The Court found that the petitioners failed to provide any evidence that their structures were authorized or specifically "affected" by the MUTP project to qualify for PAP status

Crucially, the petitioners admitted their structures were located beyond 10 meters from the 6th Railway Line, placing them outside the project scope defined in the R&R policy

Regarding procedural fairness, the Court noted that the Railways had complied with Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1971 by issuing show-cause notices and providing an opportunity for a hearing before passing the eviction orders

Unlike the situation in Utran Se Besthan, the Authorities here invoked the special enactment (the 1971 Act) rather than taking arbitrary action

However, the Court observed that as the Railways had permitted long-term occupation through inaction, they shared responsibility for the situation, necessitating directions for potential future rehabilitation based on eligibility

The Court ordered the petitioners to vacate the premises within 60 days

If they fail to vacate, the Railways are authorized to dispossess them with police assistance

The Court directed the Collector to record the identities of the occupants before demolition to preserve their right to apply for any existing State or Railway rehabilitation schemes, emphasizing that eligibility verification would be at the discretion of the Authorities

Rule was discharged with no order as to costs