Unauthorized occupants on railway land are ineligible for MUTP rehabilitation benefits if structures are not project-affected.

The Petitioners, numbering 25, are occupants of structures situated on Western Railway land in Malad (East), Mumbai

On August 29, 2022, the Estate Officer issued Show Cause Notices under Section 5A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, asserting the structures were unauthorized

The Petitioners replied on October 13, 2023, claiming eligibility for rehabilitation under a Government Resolution (GR) dated December 12, 2000, and protections under Supreme Court precedents

On January 23, 2025, the Estate Officer passed eviction orders directing vacation within 15 days

After a failed intermediate appeal to the City Civil Court on jurisdictional grounds, the Petitioners approached the High Court

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

2. Whether the eviction process followed by the Railway Authorities was in accordance with 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 primarily applied the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, specifically Section 2(g) defining "unauthorised occupation" and Section 5A, which empowers the Estate Officer to remove unauthorized structures after providing a notice to show cause

It also referenced the Government Resolution dated 12th December 2000, which establishes the eligibility criteria for Project Affected Persons (PAP) under the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP)

Furthermore, the court relied on the procedural safeguards established in *Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Govt. of India* regarding the duty of Railways to follow statutory procedures before eviction

and *Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan* [(1997) 11 SCC 121] regarding the humane relocation of long-term encroachers

The Court found that while the Petitioners claimed protection under the 2000 GR, they failed to produce any evidence that their structures were affected by a specific railway project or were situated within the 10-meter zone of the 6th Railway Line expansion

In fact, the Petitioners conceded in representations that they were located beyond the 10-meter project zone, making them ineligible for PAP status

Regarding procedural fairness, the Court noted that unlike the summary evictions deprecated in *Utran Se Besthan*, the Western Railway here invoked the Public Premises Act, issued formal notices, and granted hearings, thereby satisfying "due process"

However, acknowledging the Petitioners' long-term occupation since 1980, the Court determined that the Railways share responsibility for allowing such encroachments and must afford a reasonable window for relocation

However, mapping relief to constitutional equities, the Court directed: (i) Petitioners are granted 60 days to vacate voluntarily

(ii) The Collector must record the identity of occupants for future eligibility verification under any general state rehabilitation schemes

(iii) If found eligible under any existing secondary schemes, the Authorities may provide alternative accommodation, though not necessarily in the same locality

Rule discharged with no costs