In a recent twist, the Bombay High Court ruled against Rajkumar Rattn Chandalya and other people who challenged orders to leave their homes on railway land in Mumbai. The case involved 25 requests, all turned down by the court.
On January 23, 2025, the officer in charge told Rajkumar Rattn Chandalya and the others to leave their homes on Western Railway land in Malad (East), Mumbai. The buildings were considered not allowed, and they were given 15 days to move out. The order was signed on January 24, 2025.
"The buildings involved in these cases are not allowed," stated the court.
Rajkumar Rattn Chandalya, represented by Lawyer Mr. Naphade, argued that they should be treated as people affected by a project under the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP) policy. They mentioned a government decision from December 2000 and a Supreme Court judgment from 2021 to support their claims for new homes and help.
The court, led by Judges Ravindra V. Ghuge and Abhay J. Mantri, found that Rajkumar Rattn Chandalya and the others could not prove they deserved benefits for new homes. The buildings were not within 10 meters of the railway line, which was important for eligibility. The court emphasized that the eviction process followed the rules.
"The people asking for help have not shown that they deserve the benefits under the Government Resolution," the court noted.
While turning down the requests, the court directed that Rajkumar Rattn Chandalya and the others leave within 60 days. If they didn't, the Western Railways could proceed with eviction, with help from the police if necessary. The court also noted that the Railways should consider providing support to those affected by the eviction.
"The Railways are equally responsible... to provide some support to the people likely to be affected by the removal of their buildings."
The court decided that Rajkumar Rattn Chandalya and the other petitioners did not have a legal right to stay in their homes on railway land. The court found that they did not meet the criteria for receiving help under the existing policies, and ordered them to vacate the premises within 60 days. The court also suggested that the Railways should think about helping those who will be affected by this decision.
