UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS ON RAILWAY LAND ARE INELIGIBLE FOR REHABILITATION BENEFITS ABSENT PROOF OF PROJECT-AFFECTED STATUS.

The Petitioners are occupants of various structures situated on land belonging to Western Railways in Malad (East), Mumbai

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

The Petitioners responded, claiming protection and rehabilitation under the Government Resolution (GR) dated December 12, 2000, and the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP) policy, asserting they had occupied the premises since 1980

On January 23, 2025, the Estate Officer passed eviction orders directing the Petitioners to vacate within 15 days

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" (PAPs) entitled to rehabilitation under the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000

Whether the eviction process followed by the Railway Authorities was in accordance with the due process of law and the mandate of the Supreme Court

The court primarily 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 to show cause

The court also referred to the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000, which sets the eligibility criteria for Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) of persons affected by the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP)

Furthermore, the court relied on Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India, emphasizing the obligation of the Railways to follow due process under special enactments

Furthermore, the court relied on Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, regarding the procedural safeguards for evicting pavement dwellers

The court found that the Petitioners failed to produce any evidence demonstrating that their structures were authorized or formally protected under any railway scheme

Crucially, the Petitioners admitted in their own representations that their structures were located beyond 10 meters from the 6th Railway Line, thereby failing to meet the geographical criteria for being affected by the MUTP

The court reasoned that since the Petitioners did not fall within the scope of the MUTP project, they could not claim benefits as "Project Affected Persons" under the GR of 2000

Regarding procedural fairness, the court observed that unlike the precedent in Utran Se Besthan, where summary eviction occurred without notice, the Respondent-Railways here issued statutory show-cause notices under Section 5A(2) and provided a hearing before passing reasoned orders, thus satisfying the requirements of due process

However, citing the Railways' "public trust obligation," the Court issued several directions

Petitioners are granted 60 days to vacate the premises

if they fail to vacate, the Railways may use the local police for forcible eviction

the Collector must record the identity of the occupants before demolition to preserve their potential eligibility for future state rehabilitation schemes

the state may provide alternative accommodation only if the Petitioners are found eligible upon independent verification under existing schemes

Rule discharged