Unauthorised Occupants on Railway Land Not Covered by Specific Project Schemes Are Ineligible for Automatic Rehabilitation.

The Petitioners, 25 individuals occupying 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, asserting the structures were unauthorized.

The Petitioners contended 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.

An initial appeal to the City Civil Court was dismissed as non-maintainable on May 6, 2025, leading to these Writ Petitions.

While the Railways admitted the structures were on their land, they disputed the Petitioners' eligibility for rehabilitation.

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

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

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/government premises.

It primarily interpreted the Government Resolution (GR) dated December 12, 2000, which defines "Project Affected Persons" (PAP) and sets eligibility criteria for Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) based on baseline surveys and proximity to specific projects.

Additionally, the court relied on the Supreme Court's directives in Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India (2021) regarding the duty of Railways to follow statutory procedures for eviction.

The court also relied on Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (1997) concerning the humane treatment and recording of occupant profiles during evictions.

The Court found that the Petitioners failed to prove their structures were "project-affected" or situated within the 10-meter zone of the 6th Railway Line project, which would have triggered R&R benefits.

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

On the procedural aspect, the Court noted that unlike cases where summary eviction is forced without notice, the Estate Officer here issued Show Cause Notices, allowed the Petitioners to reply, and passed reasoned orders, thereby satisfying the "due process" requirement under the 1971 Act.

While the court upheld the illegality of the occupation, it acknowledged the Railways' "public trust obligation" and the shared responsibility for allowing such long-term encroachments, necessitating a structured eviction timeline and a check for any general state rehabilitation eligibility.

However, the Court granted a 60-day grace period to vacate.

It directed the Collector to record the identities and profiles of all occupants before demolition to verify potential eligibility under any general state rehabilitation schemes.

The Court further authorized the Western Railways to use police assistance for forcible dispossession if the premises are not vacated within 60 days.

Rule was discharged with no order as to costs.