Rlys, state clash in HC over encroachments

Rlys, state clash in HC over encroachments
EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE

JUNE 28: The simmering discontent between the railways and the state government over encroachments on the railway tracks erupted in the Bombay High Court today with Additional Solicitor General S B Jaisinghani telling the bench of Chief Justice B P Singh that the Indian Railways are willing to throw the encroachers out by the end of the year without waiting for any rehabilitation by the state.

He said the railways would not follow the dictat of the World Bank (WB) as per the Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP-II) in the rehabilitation matter and that he was covered by the earlier order of the court, which directed the agencies to set out a time-table for a phase-wise clearing of the encroachments.

All this was stiffly opposed by state Advocate General Goolam Vahanvati, who in a detailed affidavit submitted that there was a tripartite MoU between the railways, the state government and the WB on the MUTP-II, where the bank had set rehabilitation of the project-affected people (PAP) as a condition for funding the Rs 11,000-crore project.

Jaisinghani had mentioned the matter, arising out of a public interest petition filed by the Citizens for Just Society (CFJS), jumping the rest of the board, when the matter was not even called out. He sought the court's indulgence in hearing the matter, claiming that the entire issue would be settled today ``within two minutes''. He showed the affidavit filed by the Western Railway which stated that it was ready to begin eviction, obviously after the monsoon, which would be completed by the end of this year.

The speed at which Jaisinghani spoke made Vahanvati remark that the additional solicitor general ``was taking my breath away''. ``If the MUTP is jeopardised, it should be on the head of the additional solicitor general,'' he said.

``Who can prevent me from throwing them out? I have the blessings of this court,'' Jaisinghani remarked, forcefully. Vahanvati, though, argued that the entire funding of the MUTP-II, much needed for the city, depended on the rehabilitation of the PAP. However, the chief justice wondered if it would be right to give raillway encroachers the status of a `PAP'. ``How would their rehabilitation help to implement the project,'' he asked. ``How can you give a right to a person who has encroached on the rights of the travelling passenger,'' he wondered.

Vahanvati then explained that apart from the policy to protect pre-1995 slums, the state had set up the Mumbai Rail Vikas Corporation just last year, where the railways and the state had a 51-49 partnership. He stated that the MRVC was in charge of the implementation of the rail component in the state and it would be responsible for the rehabilitation component as well.

``All we are saying is that we have no land. The railways should give us some land from their vast properties, at least to be used as a transit camps till a permanent location is found for these encroachers,'' said Vahanvati. He added that the affidavits of the railways were not submitted to him. He asked for time so that the matter would come on due course and he could make his submissions.

Advocate Navroze Seervai, for the intervenors SPARC, the NGO helping with the rehabilitation, stated that ``the railways behaved differently in court, but were cooperative in the meetings with them''. Advocate B K Subbarao, for the petitioners, came in towards the end asking for time to make submissions on the state's affidavit. Which was when the bench posted the matter for further hearing on July 19.