The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of eviction of illegal hutments, the provision of alternate accommodation, and the sufficiency of an undertaking to handle the situation.

Anoop V. Mohta, J.

1. Heard, finally by consent of all the parties.

2. All these Petitions can be disposed of, as the issues' involve are common and interconnected and revolving around Public Interest Litigation No.140 of 2006 (JanhitManch and ors vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.) and order passed therein from time to time, apart from the orders in other connected matters.

3. The basic order dated 14 October 2009, whereby it is recorded as under:-

We passed the order on 29.7.2009 and appointed a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the State. It is not disputed that the pipes carrying water from the source to Mumbai citizens are more than hundred years old, and they carry water for 160 kilometers. The Ninety kilometers of the pipes are over the ground and sixty kilometers are underground. There are hutments constructed by illegal encroachers in an around the pipes. Apparently, there is threat to the security as well to the health of the citizens of Mumbai. According to the Corporation, there are more than 15000 hutments either adjacent to the pipeline or even at the place over it. The Committee has made and has chalked out a plan by which the hutments would be removed by 2015 and the eligible encroachers would be rehabilitated. This plan has been signed by the Chief Secretary, the Finance Secretary and the D.G.P., of the State and is part of an affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra. We accept the affidavit and the plan and direct that the plan shall be implemented in accordance with the report of the Committee. In addition to this, we direct the D.G.P., to take all steps and measures which are necessary to protect the pipes and ensure that the water reaching Mumbai through these pipes is not polluted or used for any purpose which would endanger the lives of the citizens of Mumbai. The directions are given in the context of the security of the country and also of Mumbai which has experienced some of the worst terrorists attacks in recent past. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. In view of disposal of the main petition, the chamber summons does not survive, same is also disposed of.

4. The urgent requirement therefore is to implement the orders by the Respondent-Corporation and other concerned authorities, by removing illegal hutments/encroachments in and around the pipelines. There is no question of delaying the eviction process. This Court, from time to time, refused to entertain Petitions and not even granted protection to such slum dwellers/structures.

5. The Respondent-Corporation, based upon the same, started to evict/demolish the alleged illegal structures/hutments phase-wise. They are also rehabilitating eligible dwellers/encroachers/occupants. The said process has been in progress till this date.

6. On 2nd January 2012, the Respondent/State of Maharashtra has announced a Policy called “Transfer of Hutments eligible for protection” [Government Resolution No.SIMP-2010/C.R.1 Slum Imp-1 dated 2nd January, 2012] [www.maharashtra.gov.in, index number :2012010214364520001] (for short, “the Policy”). This is in reference to earlier Government Circulars. In view of this Policy, the Respondent-Corporation proceeded further and providing, after due enquiry and decision, to the eligibles', the alternate accommodation under the scheme called “Project Affected Persons (PAP)”. The Corporation, accordingly, after rehabilitating them demolished many hutments/structures, phase-wise.

7. The issue arose with regard to the disputes about the present occupiers, who are not original occupants of the hutments/structures. The Respondent-Corporation, therefore, issued notices and directed the concerned occupants to submit their say/reply to justify their entitlement of PAP. The Petitioners/Occupants, accordingly, submitted their documents in support of their case. However, the Respondents by impugned order dated 8th January 2014, rejected the claim/case of the occupants/Pet