Unauthorised occupants on railway land are not entitled to rehabilitation benefits absent project-affected status.

The Petitioners, occupants of unauthorized structures on Western Railway land in Malad (East), Mumbai, challenged eviction orders dated January 23, 2025, passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

The Railways issued show-cause notices on August 29, 2022, following which the Petitioners claimed protection under the Government Resolution (GR) dated December 12, 2000, asserting they were "Project Affected Persons" (PAP) under the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP).

After their appeals were dismissed by the City Civil Court as non-maintainable on May 6, 2025, they approached the High Court.

The Petitioners claimed occupation since 1980, while the Railways contended the structures were not affected by the specific "6th Railway Line" project.

Whether the Petitioners qualify as Project Affected Persons (PAP) entitled to rehabilitation under the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000.

Whether the Estate Officer followed due process of law as mandated by the Supreme Court in Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India.

The Court applied Sections 2(e), 2(g), and 5A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which govern the definition of public premises, unauthorized occupation, and the summary procedure for removal of structures.

It relied on the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000, which defines the eligibility of squatters for Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) if they are enumerated during a baseline survey for a specific project.

Furthermore, it adhered to the procedural mandates for humane eviction established in Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India and the rehabilitation guidelines in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan.

The Court found that while the structures were on Railway land, the Petitioners failed to produce evidence that their dwellings were "project-affected" or situated within 10 meters of the 6th Railway Line, which would have triggered PAP status.

In fact, the Petitioners’ own representations admitted their structures were beyond the 10-meter mark.

The Court distinguished the Utran Se Besthan case, noting that unlike that precedent—where eviction occurred without notice—the Railways here followed the statutory procedure under the 1971 Act by issuing show-cause notices and providing hearings.

However, citing the Railways' "public trust obligation" and shared responsibility for allowing long-term encroachment, the Court determined that the Railways must still provide support for removal and verify eligibility for any general residue rehabilitation schemes.

However, the Court granted the Petitioners 60 days to voluntarily vacate the premises.

It directed the Collector to record the identity of the occupants before demolition to preserve their right to apply for any existing State or Railway rehabilitation schemes for which they might be eligible.

The Court underscored that while the Railways may use police assistance for demolition after the 60-day grace period, any future rehabilitation would not grant Petitioners a right to the same location.

Rule discharged.