Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently stayed the eviction of residents from their structures on railway land at Khar (E), noting that no fresh survey was carried out before the passing of the order.
Justice Riyaz Chagla passed the interim order pending the hearing of a petition by 17 residents of Teen Bangla Jhopadpatti to quash the Dec 5 order passed by the estate officer, Western Railway (WR), under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. The order directed them to vacate within 15 days of the date of publication of the order, and in the event of refusal or failure to do so, they are liable for eviction from their premises by use of force as may be necessary. As there is no provision for appeal, the residents moved the High Court. Their petition said the order violates a Dec 2021 Supreme Court judgment that even persons residing on railway land need to be rehabilitated before they are sought to be evicted. Many of them belong to marginalised communities.
The petitioners’ advocate, Sangram Chinnappa, said the identical Dec 5 order was served to them only on Dec 31. He said there was no survey carried out for considering eligibility for suitable accommodation as mandated by the SC judgment. He also said there are documents to show a BMC survey found the petitioners to be eligible before the Jan 1, 2000 cut-off date.
Considering the urgency made out that WR authorities are visiting the petitioners’ residences for eviction, as well as that they were given 15 days to vacate their homes, Justice Chagla in the Feb 5 order said, “a prima facie case is made out for ad-interim stay of the Dec 5 order.”
He also noted that Dec 5 “nowhere mentioned a fresh survey was carried out prior to issuance of the impugned order.”
Also, the SC had directed that before commencing the process of eviction and removal of the structures, such a survey is required to be carried out. Therefore, till the next hearing on March 4, he stayed the “operation and implementation” of the Dec 5 order. Since Western Railway, though served notice by the petitioners, failed to make an appearance, Justice Chagla directed the HC registry to issue notice to it.
