RAJO RANSINGH TAK v. THE UNION OF INDIA ACTING THRU. THE WESTERN RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION
Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants from Railway Land: Compliance with Due Process and the Limitations of Project-Specific Rehabilitation Policies.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:5286
Decision Date: 26-02-2026
List of Laws
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971; Constitution of India, Article 226; Government Resolution (GR) dated 12th December 2000 (MUTP R&R Policy); Administrative Law - Due Process in Eviction; Right to Shelter and Rehabilitation Principles
- Facts: The petitioners are occupants of structures situated on land belonging to the Western Railways at Malad (East), Mumbai. On 29th August 2022, the Estate Officer issued show-cause notices under Section 5A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, asserting that the structures were unauthorized. The petitioners responded, claiming they had occupied the premises since 1980 and were entitled to protection and rehabilitation under a Government Resolution (GR) dated 12th December 2000, which pertains to the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP). However, the Estate Officer passed orders on 23rd January 2025 directing the petitioners to vacate the premises within 15 days, concluding that the occupants did not qualify for rehabilitation benefits.
- Procedural Posture: Aggrieved by the eviction orders, the petitioners initially filed an appeal before the City Civil Court, Mumbai. The City Civil Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable on 6th May 2025. Consequently, the petitioners approached the High Court of Bombay by filing a batch of 25 connected Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- Issue: Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of resettlement and rehabilitation under the Government Resolution dated 12th December 2000, and whether the eviction orders passed by the Estate Officer under the Act of 1971 were legally sustainable?
- Holding: No, the petitioners are not entitled to relief under the specified Government Resolution, and the eviction orders are sustained. However, the Court granted a 60-day window for voluntary vacation and directed the Collector to record the occupants' data for future eligibility checks under any existing rehabilitation schemes.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that their structures were "project affected" or fell within the specific eligibility criteria of the MUTP resettlement policy. Specifically, the petitioners admitted their structures were located beyond 10 meters from the 6th Railway Line, placing them outside the protected zone. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court's mandate in "Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal", noting that in this instance, the Railway Authorities had strictly followed the due process of law by issuing proper show-cause notices and providing a hearing. While the structures were clearly unauthorized, the Court applied the humanitarian principles from "Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan", holding that the Railways, as a public authority, have a duty to record the identity of the evicted persons to allow them to apply for any general state rehabilitation schemes they might be eligible for in the future.
🔒 For Members Only