Unauthorized occupants on railway land are not entitled to rehabilitation benefits absent project-affected eligibility.

Twenty-five petitioners, claiming to be occupants of structures on Western Railway land in Malad (East), Mumbai since approximately 1980 challenged eviction orders dated January 23, 2025.

These orders were issued by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ("Act of 1971").

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

Following the eviction orders, the petitioners unsuccessfully appealed to the City Civil Court, which dismissed the appeals as non-maintainable on May 6, 2025.

The petitioners then moved the High Court under Article 226.

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

2. Whether the Estate Officer followed due process of law as mandated by the Act of 1971 and judicial precedents before ordering eviction.

The court applied Section 2(e) and 2(g) of the Act of 1971 to define public premises and unauthorized occupation.

Section 5A regarding the power to remove unauthorized structures.

The legal framework for rehabilitation was governed by the Government Resolution dated 12th December 2000, which defines eligibility for PAPs based on baseline surveys and proximity to project sites.

The court also relied on *Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India* (2021) regarding the obligation of Railways to follow statutory procedures for eviction.

*Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan* (1997) regarding the humanitarian obligations of authorities during the eviction of long-term pavement/slum dwellers.

The court found that the petitioners admitted the structures were unauthorized and situated on Railway land.

Although the petitioners claimed protection under the 2000 GR, they failed to produce evidence that their structures were affected by the MUTP project or situated within the 10-meter threshold of the 6th Railway Line; in fact, their own representations stated they were beyond 10 meters.

Regarding due process, the court noted that the Estate Officer had issued statutory Show Cause Notices under Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1971 and provided a hearing before passing the reasoned impugned orders.

Consequently, the court distinguished this case from *Utran Se Besthan*, noting that here the Railways had strictly followed the summary mechanism provided by the special enactment.

However, citing *Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation*, the court held that while the occupation was illegal, the long-term nature of the stay required the authorities to maintain records of the displaced persons for potential future eligibility under state rehabilitation schemes.

Petitioners are granted 60 days to voluntarily vacate the premises.

Failure to vacate permits the Railways to use force/police assistance for demolition.

The Collector must record and preserve the identity/profiles of the occupants before eviction to consider future eligibility for residential accommodation under any applicable state schemes.

The Railways should initiate prompt proceedings against unauthorized occupants in the future rather than allowing long-term encroachments.

Rule was discharged with no order as to costs.