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

Twenty-five petitioners challenged eviction orders dated January 23, 2025, issued by the Estate Officer, Western Railway.

The petitioners occupy structures on Railway land at Malad (East), Mumbai, claiming residence since approximately 1980.

Following show-cause notices issued in August 2022 under Section 5A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ("Act of 1971"), the Estate Officer found the structures to be unauthorized and ordered vacation within 15 days.

The petitioners’ initial appeals to the City Civil Court were dismissed as non-maintainable on May 6, 2025.

The petitioners sought relief from the High Court, asserting eligibility for Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) under the Government Resolution (GR) dated December 12, 2000, and the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP) guidelines.

Whether the petitioners qualify as "Project Affected Persons" (PAP) under the MUTP guidelines or the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000, thereby entitling them to rehabilitation prior to eviction?

Whether the eviction procedure followed by the Railway Authorities was consistent with the due process of law and the mandate of the Supreme Court in Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India?

The court applied Section 5A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which empowers Estate Officers to remove unauthorized constructions from public premises after serving notice and considering causes shown.

It relied on the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000, which defines "Project Affected Persons" (PAP) and sets the "cut-off date" based on baseline surveys for eligibility for R&R benefits.

Furthermore, the court referred to the principles in Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India, which emphasizes the obligation of Railway Authorities to invoke special enactments (like the Act of 1971) and provide support to those affected by demolition where the Authorities contributed to the situation's longevity.

Finally, the court cited Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan regarding the balancing of the right to shelter with the need to remove encroachments on public property.

The Court found that while the petitioners claimed long-term occupation, they failed to produce evidence demonstrating that their structures were authorized or specifically "affected" by the MUT project to qualify for PAP status.

Crucially, the petitioners admitted in their own representations that their structures were located beyond 10 meters from the 6th Railway Line, placing them outside the scope of the rehabilitation scheme designated for that project.

The Court distinguished Utran Se Besthan by noting that, unlike in that case where due process was bypassed, the Respondent-Railways here had strictly adhered to the Act of 1971 by issuing statutory show-cause notices and providing a hearing before passing the final orders.

Consequently, the petitioners were held to be unauthorized occupants without a legal right to remain or a specific claim to R&R under the invoked 2000 Resolution.

Petitioners are granted 60 days to vacate the premises.

Failure to vacate permits the Railways to use police assistance for demolition.

The Collector must record the profiles of occupants for potential future eligibility under any general rehabilitation schemes.

If petitioners are found independently eligible under any existing State or Railway scheme, the Authorities may consider them for alternative accommodation, though the petitioners have no right to insist on a specific location.

No costs were awarded.