Haldwani Evictions | Supreme Court Gives 2 Months To Uttarakhand To Come Up With Rehabilitation Scheme For Persons To Be Evicted

The Supreme Court today gave 2 months' time to State of Uttarakhand to come up with a rehabilitation scheme for persons sought to be evicted by Railway authorities in Haldwani.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an application filed by the Union of India/Railways seeking modification of the order staying the eviction of nearly 50,000 people, who have allegedly encroached upon railway properties in Haldwani.

As per the railways, a retaining wall protecting the railway tracks was demolished by the violent flow of the Ghuala River during last year's monsoon. As such, a request has been made for a strip of land to be made available urgently to facilitate the railway operations.

It may be noted that the evictions from the railway lands were ordered by the Uttarakhand High Court in December 2022 in a Public Interest Litigation. In January 2023, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court's direction and the interim order was extended from time to time.

Previously, the top Court had stated that the authorities should ensure rehabilitation of people before evicting them. Justice Kant had particularly pointed out that since many residents were claiming title based on documents, a PIL was not an "effective remedy" to address disputed questions of fact.

It was directed that the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand convene a meeting with the railway authorities (Divisional Senior Manager, Uttarakhand) and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Govt of India to immediately devolve a rehabilitation scheme subject to such conditions which are "fair, just, equitable and acceptable to all the sides."

As per the Union, approximately 30.40 hectares of railway/state-owned land was encroached upon and there were about 4,365 houses and over 50,000 residents. In response to a Court query, it was informed that people from 1200 huts are sought to be evicted.

During today's proceedings, Senior Advocate Balbir Singh (for Uttarakhand) informed the Court that steps are being taken in terms of the last order. It was submitted that a joint meeting was convened (between the Ministry of Housing, state authorities and Railways) and 2 months' time may be given to place a suitable rehabilitation scheme/proposal.

"A joint team has been planned to carry out the survey to identify the number of families and the residents in that area, which have been claimed to be 4500 families. So far as identification of a land to be relocated, and financial arrangements to be made between the Railways and the state, for that we are seeking time. Rehabilitation policy is currently under framing," Singh said.

On behalf of Uttarakhand, it was also stated that about 30 hectares of strip of land has been identified, subject to what Railways may say in its affidavit.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves appeared for the petitioner and urged that the retaining wall is almost complete and flooding of the railway tracks is no longer possible. "Not a single person has to be shifted", he said. At this point, Singh interjected, pointing out that the same is not a permanent solution.

After hearing the parties, Justice Kant suggested that Railways can consider implementing the project in a phased manner, rather than going at it in one go. The judge also observed that in some cases, it may eventually be found that certain persons/families are not required to be shifted.

Ultimately, the matter was adjourned to enable Uttarakhand to file a concrete proposal. Interim directions shall continue in the meantime.

The order, as dictated in Court, recorded: "Mr Balbir Singh submits...rehabilitation of those who are likely to be effected/uprooted is also under active consideration. He submits that given 2 months time, a concrete proposal shall be placed on record. Ld. Senior Counsel/counsel for petitioner do not have any objection...List for consideration on...Interim directions to continue".

Case Title: Abdul Mateen Siddiqui v. Union of India and Ors. Diary No. 289/2023 (and connected cases)