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

A batch of 25 petitioners, residing in various chawls at Dhobi Ghat, Malad (East), Mumbai, challenged eviction orders passed by the Estate Officer of Western Railway on January 23–24, 2025.

The Western Railway issued show-cause notices under Section 5A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, in August 2022, alleging the structures were unauthorized encroachments on railway land.

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

After an unsuccessful appeal to the City Civil Court, which was dismissed for lack of maintainability on May 6, 2025, the petitioners approached the High Court.

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

It considered the Government Resolution dated 12.12.2000 regarding Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) for the MUTP, which defines eligibility for Project Affected Persons (PAP).

The court referred to the procedural mandates in Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India (2021) regarding the Railways' duty to follow the Public Premises Act before eviction.

The court referred to Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (1997) regarding the structured removal of encroachments.

The Court found that the petitioners admitted the structures were unauthorized and located on railway land.

Regarding the claim for rehabilitation, the Court noted that the petitioners failed to prove their structures were within 10 meters of the 6th Railway Line or affected by any specific MUTP project; in fact, the petitioners' own representations stated they were beyond the 10-meter mark.

Since they were not "Project Affected," the benefits of the 2000 GR did not apply.

On the issue of due process, the Court distinguished the Utran Se Besthan precedent, noting that unlike that case where summary eviction occurred without notice, the Railways here invoked Section 5A of the Act of 1971, issued show-cause notices, and provided a hearing, thus adhering to legal requirements.

However, the Court acknowledged that since the Railways allowed the occupation to persist for decades, they bore a humanitarian responsibility to coordinate with the Collector to record the occupants' profiles for future eligibility under general state schemes.

The Court directed the petitioners to vacate the premises within 60 days, failing which Western Railway is authorized to forcibly dispossess them with police assistance.

The Respondent-Collector was directed to record and preserve the identity/profiles of the occupants before demolition to consider their eligibility for any general state rehabilitation schemes in the future.

No specific view was expressed on the grant of such benefits, leaving it to the independent decision of the authorities.

Rule discharged.