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

A batch of 25 petitioners, residing in structures on Western Railway land in 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, on August 29, 2022.

The petitioners claimed they had occupied the premises since 1980 and were entitled to rehabilitation as Project Affected Persons (PAPs) under a Government Resolution (GR) dated December 12, 2000.

After considering their replies, the Estate Officer ordered eviction within 15 days.

An appeal to the City Civil Court was dismissed as non-maintainable on May 6, 2025.

The petitioners moved the High Court seeking protected status and rehabilitation.

1. Whether the petitioners qualify as "Project Affected Persons" (PAP) entitled to Rehabilitation and Resettlement (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. Govt. of India*.

The court primarily applied Section 5A and Section 2 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which provides the mechanism for removing unauthorized structures from public land.

It relied on the eligibility criteria for "Project Affected Persons" defined in the Government Resolution dated 12th December 2000 regarding the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP).

The court further applied the procedural fairness standards established in *Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India*, which requires Railway authorities to invoke special enactments rather than arbitrary action.

The court further applied the procedural fairness standards established in *Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan*, regarding the humane treatment of encroachers during eviction.

The court found that the petitioners failed to produce any evidence demonstrating that their structures were authorized or specifically "affected" by a recognized railway project.

Crucially, the petitioners admitted in their own representation that their structures were located beyond 10 meters of the 6th Railway Line, placing them outside the scope of the MUTP rehabilitation scheme.

Regarding procedural compliance, the court noted that unlike the precedent cited by the petitioners, the Railways here had complied with the Act of 1971 by issuing statutory show-cause notices and providing a hearing before passing orders.

While the court affirmed the structures were unauthorized and ineligible for automatic PAP benefits, it held the Railways partially responsible for allowing long-term encroachment and thus mandated a verified identification process before demolition.

While the court affirmed the structures were unauthorized and ineligible for automatic PAP benefits, it held the Railways partially responsible for allowing long-term encroachment and thus mandated a verified identification process before demolition.

However, invoking humanitarian guidelines, the court directed the petitioners to vacate within 60 days.

It ordered the Collector to record the identities of occupants to preserve their potential future eligibility for any general State rehabilitation schemes.

The court clarified that while no specific project-based rehabilitation was granted, authorities must consider applications under general schemes if the petitioners are found eligible upon verification.

Rule discharged.