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

The Petitioners, occupants of unauthorized structures on Western Railway land at Malad (East), Mumbai, challenged eviction orders dated January 23, 2025.

The Estate Officer issued Show Cause Notices under Section 5A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, in August 2022.

Petitioners claimed they were "Project Affected Persons" (PAPs) entitled to rehabilitation under the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP) and the Government Resolution (GR) dated December 12, 2000, asserting occupation since 1980.

Before filing these Writ Petitions, their appeals to the City Civil Court were dismissed as maintainable.

1. Whether the Petitioners qualify as Project Affected Persons (PAPs) entitled to Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) under the Government Resolution dated 12th December 2000.

2. 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(e) (defining public premises), Section 2(g) (defining unauthorized occupation), and Section 5A (authorizing the removal of unauthorized structures).

It further relied on the Government Resolution dated 12th December 2000, which establishes eligibility for Resettlement and Rehabilitation if claimants are enumerated during baseline surveys or directly affected by MUTP sub-projects.

Additionally, the court cited Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan [(1997) 11 SCC 121] regarding the duty to provide reasonable time for eviction and consider eligibility for rehabilitation schemes even for unauthorized occupants.

The Court found that the Petitioners admitted their structures were unauthorized and situated on Railway land.

Regarding the claim for PAP status, the Court observed that the Petitioners failed to produce evidence showing their structures were affected by the MUTP or were situated within the 10-meter zone of the 6th Railway Line project; in fact, their own representations placed them beyond the project zone.

The Court distinguished the Utran Se Besthan precedent, noting that unlike that case where summary eviction occurred without notice, the Western Railway here invoked the special enactment (the 1971 Act), issued statutory show cause notices, and provided a hearing, thereby satisfying "due process."

Because the structures did not fall within any specific project-affected scheme, the mandatory rehabilitation benefits under the 2000 GR could not be invoked.

However, citing the Railways' "public trust obligation," the Court directed: (a) Petitioners are granted 60 days to vacate the premises; (b) failing which, the Railways may use police assistance for demolition; and (c) the Collector must record its occupants' identities before eviction to preserve their right to apply for other general state rehabilitation schemes if they meet the requisite criteria.

The Court clarified it was not mandating rehabilitation but left eligibility verification to the concerned authorities.

Rule discharged.