Judgment : This application is being heard alongwith the Civil Order No. 17695(W) of 1993 which has been filed by Sri Karunakar Balia Singh and others on the appellate Side. 2. The petitioners in this writ application claim to be the joint owners of premises No. 1, Garatin Place, Calcutta, alongwith the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 3. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid premises was requisitioned by the State Government vide Order No. 46/61 dated 26th April, 1861. According to the petitioners, having regard to the provisions of Section 10B of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947, the premises was sought to be derequisitioned and the petitioners were requested to receive vacant possession of the property from the Office Surveyor and Valuer attached to the Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, on 31st December, 1993. It is the petitioners grievance that despite such order and intimation they were not handed over vacant possession of the said premises in view of the obstruction caused by the occupants thereof. 4. The writ petitioners in the writ petition filed on the Appellate Side claim to be the employees of the State Government who were allotted quarters in the aforesaid premises and have been residing there for as long as 20 years and above upon payment of rents to the Government. 5. Mr. Biman Basu, the learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that in view of their allotment and occupation of the premises and payment of rent they could not be asked to vacate the premises as has been done by virtue of a notice dated 2nd December, 1993, being annexure 'C' to the writ petition. 6. Mr. Basu submits that in view of Rules 29, 222 and 223 of the West Bengal Premises Service Rules (Part 1), the State Government was under an obligation to provide the writ petitioners with alternate accommodation before asking them to vacate the quarter under their occupation. 7. In support of his aforesaid contention Mr. 6. Mr. Basu submits that in view of Rules 29, 222 and 223 of the West Bengal Premises Service Rules (Part 1), the State Government was under an obligation to provide the writ petitioners with alternate accommodation before asking them to vacate the quarter under their occupation. 7. In support of his aforesaid contention Mr. Basu referred to and relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (1) K. Chandru v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors reported in AIR 1986 SC 204 wherein while considering the case of eviction of slum dwellers and pavement dwellers the Supreme Court directed that no eviction should take place till such time as alternate accommodation was provided to the said slum dwellers and pavement dwellers. Mr. Basu urged that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the concerned authority should be restrained from giving effect to the impugned order without first providing the petitioners with an alternate accommodation. 8. Mr. Banerjee, the learned advocate appearing for the State and the State-respondent submits that notwithstanding the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Service Rules referred to by Mr. Basu, the State Government was under no obligation to provide accommodation to the writ petitioners and that there was no compulsion in the Rules that such accommodation had to be provided. 9. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, it appears to me that as far as the writ petitioners in the writ petition of Karunakar Balia Singh and Others are concerned, they cannot as a matter of right, claim alternate accommodation from the State Government in lieu of the premises presently under their occupation. Moreover, the said issue cannot be interlinked with the question of making over vacant possession pursuant to the order of dereqnisition of the premises in question passed under Section 10B of the Act 5 of 1947. 10. Under Section 10B of the above Act, a mandatory duty bas been cast on the State Government to release the premises under the requisition for more than 25 years and to make over possession thereof to the concerned owners. The allotment and/or occupation of the requisitioned premises by the said employees of the State Government cannot be allowed to stand in the way of implementing the aforesaid provisions. 11. The allotment and/or occupation of the requisitioned premises by the said employees of the State Government cannot be allowed to stand in the way of implementing the aforesaid provisions. 11. Accordingly, I dispose of both these applications by directing the State Government and its concerned authorities to take steps to make over possession of the premises in question to the owners, as contemplated in the order dated 21st December, 1993, being annexure 'B' to the writ petition, within a period of three months from the date of this order. The State and the State respondents are also directed to consider the representation made by the writ petitioners in Civil Order No. 17695(W) of 1993 regarding alternate accommodation to be provided to them, inasmuch as, in my view, no mandatory order can be passed as was passed in the case of K. Chandra (Supra) referred to by Mr. Basu. In that case there was no question of making over possession of the pavements to any particular person and there was no question of any order under Section 10B of the Act, 1947. The two fact situations are, in my view, totally different. The State and the State respondents are also directed to take steps for payment of any arrear rent compensation in respect of the aforesaid premises also within a period of three months from date. 12. This order disposes of Civil Order No. 17695(W) of 1993 as well. There will be no order as to costs. All parties to act on a signed xeroxed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.