UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS REMOVED UNDER PUBLIC PREMISES ACT ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLED TO REHABILITATION BENEFITS.

The Petitioners, a group of 25 individuals residing in various chawls at Dhobi Ghat, Malad (East), Mumbai, challenged eviction orders dated January 23, 2025, issued by the Estate Officer of Western Railway.

The Western Railway issued show-cause notices on August 29, 2022, under Section 5A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, directing the removal of unauthorized structures 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).

Their appeals to the City Civil Court were dismissed as not maintainable on May 6, 2025.

The Petitioners subsequently filed these Writ Petitions seeking protection from eviction and a declaration of eligibility for rehabilitation.

Whether the Petitioners qualify as "Project Affected Persons" (PAP) under the MUTP or the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000, thereby making them eligible for rehabilitation prior to eviction.

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 applied the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, specifically Section 2(e) defining "public premises," Section 2(g) defining "unauthorised occupation," and Section 5A regarding the removal of unauthorized constructions.

It relied on the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000, which sets out the eligibility criteria for Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) of PAPs within the MUTP.

It further considered the precedents of Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India (2021) regarding the obligation of Railways to follow due process before eviction.

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (1997) regarding the balance between the state's right to clear encroachments and the humanitarian obligation to provide rehabilitation support.

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

The Petitioners failed to produce evidence that their structures were affected by the MUTP or were situated within 10 meters of the 6th Railway Line, which would have classified them as PAPs; in fact, the Petitioners conceded their structures were located beyond that limit.

Consequently, they did not meet the eligibility criteria under the GR dated December 12, 2000.

Regarding procedural fairness, the Court found that the Railways had complied with the statutory requirements of the 1971 Act by issuing show-cause notices and providing a hearing, thus distinguishing the case from the summary evictions criticized in the Utran Se Besthan judgment.

While the legal right to evict was upheld, the Court noted the Railways shared responsibility for allowing the long-term encroachment and must provide support as per humanitarian guidelines.

It held that the Petitioners are not eligible for PAP benefits as they failed to prove their structures were affected by a specific project.

However, based on equitable principles, the Court ordered: (a) Petitioners must vacate within 60 days;

(b) the Collector must record the identity of occupants before eviction for future eligibility checks;

and (c) the Authorities must consider the Petitioners for existing rehabilitation schemes if they are found eligible upon verification, though Petitioners cannot insist on a specific location for allotment.