### Unauthorised Railway Land Occupants Are Ineligible For Rehabilitation Benefits Absent Proof Of Project-Affected Status

25 petitioners challenged eviction orders dated January 23, 2025, issued by the Estate Officer of Western Railway.

The petitioners occupy structures on Railway land in Malad (East), Mumbai, asserting they have been in occupation since 1980.

In August 2022, the Railways issued show-cause notices under Section 5A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, identifying the structures as unauthorized.

The petitioners claimed they were entitled to rehabilitation as "Project Affected Persons" (PAP) under the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP) per a Government Resolution (GR) dated December 12, 2000.

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

Whether the petitioners qualify as "Project Affected Persons" (PAP) entitled to Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits under the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2000.

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 Sections 2(e), 2(g), 5, and 5A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which provide a summary mechanism for the eviction of unauthorized occupants and removal of structures from public premises.

It relied on the Government Resolution (GR) dated December 12, 2000, which defines the eligibility of Project Affected Persons (PAPs) for resettlement based on baseline surveys and proximity to project lines.

Furthermore, the court adhered to the procedural safeguards established in *Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India*, requiring the invocation of special enactments like the Public Premises Act for eviction.

The court also considered *Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan*, regarding the balancing of eviction with humanitarian considerations.

The Court found that the petitioners admitted the structures were unauthorized.

Regarding issue one, the Court noted the petitioners failed to provide evidence that their structures were affected by the MUTP project or situated within the 10-meter eligibility zone of the 6th Railway Line; in fact, their own representations placed them beyond 10 meters.

Consequently, they did not qualify for PAP status under the 2000 GR.

Regarding issue two, the Court distinguished the *Utran* precedent, noting that unlike the summary removals in that case, the Railways here followed the statutory procedure under the Act of 1971 by issuing show-cause notices and passing reasoned orders.

While the Court upheld the legality of the eviction, it observed that since the Railways allowed long-term occupation, they shared responsibility for the situation.

However, based on equitable principles, the Court directed: (a) Petitioners are granted 60 days to vacate voluntarily.

(b) failing which, the Railways may use police assistance for demolition.

(c) the Collector must record the identity of occupants for future eligibility verification under any other applicable State schemes.

(d) if found eligible under other schemes, rehabilitation need not be at the same site.

Rule was discharged with no order as to costs.