On 25th February, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant order in the long running Haldwani eviction matter. The Court made it clear that land belonging to the Railways cannot be controlled or dictated by those who have encroached upon it. It firmly stated that people who are facing eviction cannot demand rehabilitation at the same site that has been marked for railway expansion.

The order was passed by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipin Pancholi. During the hearing, the Bench underlined that while the issue of rehabilitation must be examined with care and seriousness, the occupation of railway land cannot be turned into a tool to bargain against public infrastructure projects.

Chief Justice Surya Kant clearly addressed the concerns raised in court and remarked, “Why insist on staying there when there can be another place with better amenities. For any ambitious project there is vacant space needed on both sides. The people staying there cannot dictate where the railway should lay the line.” His observation reflected the Court’s position that infrastructure projects of national importance require planning and space, and such decisions cannot be determined by unauthorised occupants.

The Bench further stressed that the ongoing stalemate over the railway land in Haldwani cannot continue forever. According to the Court, the matter must reach a practical and lawful conclusion rather than remain stuck in prolonged litigation.

Over 4,000 Families Facing Eviction

The case concerns around 4,000 families who are living on railway land in the Banbhoolpura area of Haldwani, Uttarakhand. These families are considered illegal occupants of the land. In December 2022, the Uttarakhand High Court had directed that the encroachments on railway land be removed.

Many of the residents claim that they have been living there for several decades. After the High Court declined to provide them relief, the affected families approached the Supreme Court. They argued that eviction would leave them homeless and would have a severe impact on marginalised sections of society. Their plea was based on the fear that thousands of people, including women, children and elderly persons, would suddenly lose shelter.

The petitioners also contended that the BJP ruled State government did not effectively defend their case before the High Court. According to them, this failure resulted in a decision that favoured the Railways and did not properly consider their circumstances.

Petitioners Question High Court’s Summary Proceedings

Before the Supreme Court, one of the main legal arguments presented by the petitioners was that disputes related to ownership of immovable property require a detailed legal process. They argued that such matters involve careful examination of documents, witness statements, cross examination and formal pleadings.

The petitioners submitted that such a thorough exercise could not have been properly carried out in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In other words, they believed that the High Court’s approach did not allow for a full examination of the facts and evidence relating to the land.

It is important to note that in January 2023, the Supreme Court had stayed the eviction order passed by the Uttarakhand High Court. At that time, the Court had asked that rehabilitation measures be considered before any action was taken.

Later, in July 2024, another Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan raised objections to the Railways attempting to rely on directions issued in a public interest litigation to carry out evictions. The Court had observed that evictions must follow the due procedure prescribed under the law and cannot be executed without proper legal compliance.

Court Emphasises Rehabilitation as Assistance, Not a Right

However, in the latest hearing on Tuesday, the Supreme Court clarified that there is no dispute regarding who owns the land. The Court observed that the land belongs to the State, and the State has the authority to decide how best to use it.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi made it clear that any rehabilitation offered to the affected families would be “more of a help and less of a right”. This observation highlighted the Court’s view that living on public land does not automatically create a legal entitlement that can block infrastructure development.

The Court also suggested that the affected families may apply for rehabilitation under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna. It noted that most of the families are likely to fall under the Economically Weaker Section category, making them eligible under the scheme.

The Bench remarked, “It is highly desirable that the livelihood of the petitioner is not affected and thus let applications be filed under PM Awas Yojna.” With this statement, the Court showed that while it does not recognise a legal right to continue occupying railway land, it remains concerned about the impact of eviction on livelihoods.

Directions to Authorities and Legal Services Body

To ensure that the rehabilitation process moves forward in an organised manner, the Supreme Court issued clear directions to the local administration. The Collector of Nainital and authorities in Haldwani have been directed to distribute application forms under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna to the residents of the area.

In addition, the Member Secretary of the State Legal Services Authority has been instructed to organise rehabilitation camps at the site. The purpose of these camps is to guide families through the application process and ensure that no eligible family is left out. The Court specifically ordered that every head of the family should be encouraged to apply under the housing scheme.

The Court has directed that this exercise should begin after 19th March, and that a “practical solution” must be found before 31st March. The Bench clearly stated, “Let camps be held till all families have applied. Let some counsellors, social activists and domain experts be engaged who can apprise the occupiers of the benefits of PM Awas Yojna.”

It is also notable that counsel appearing for the petitioners requested that the process for eligible families begin after ramzan, which falls on 19th March. The Court took this request into account while fixing the timeline.

With this order, the Supreme Court has set out a clear judicial position. It has stated that while humanitarian concerns and rehabilitation must be properly addressed, encroachment on public land cannot be allowed to override infrastructure expansion projects. The judgment attempts to balance legal ownership, public interest and the human impact of eviction, while ensuring that the law regarding public land remains firm and unambiguous.