COMMON ORDER P. D. DINAKARAN, J. The above writ petitions are directed against the order of the appellate authority setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer, evicting the contesting respondents/encroachers, who are about 125 in number, from the public premises of an extent of 3.36 acres located in Survey No. 722/2, Ward 5, Block 16, Vellore District, on the ground that the Estate Officer had not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act viz., (i) Notice under Section 4 of the Act; (ii) Recording of evidence that may be produced in support of the notice; (iii) Giving reasonable opportunity to the unauthorised occupant to represent the case; (iv) the authority must be satisfied that the public premises is unauthorisedly occupied; (v) the authority afterwards has to make an order of eviction; (vi) such an order of eviction must be supported by reasons; (vi) that order must direct the unauthorised occupier to vacate the premises on such date as may be specified in that order; and (vii) the copy of the said order has to be affixed on the outer or in some other conspicuous part of public premises in question. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant, challenging the finding of the appellate authority that the Estate Officer had not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act as mentioned above, invited our attention to the various provisions of the Act and placed before us the entire records for our perusal to substantiate that each and every procedure prescribed under the Act had been duly followed and complied with before passing the order of eviction by the Estate Officer. 3. Unfortunately, there is no representation on behalf of the contesting respondents/encroachers. Therefore, we are constrained to wade through the entire file relating to the impugned order of eviction as well as the order made by the appellate authority. 4.1. The appellate authority allowed the appeals, taking note of the fact that the encroachers have not been given notice of the joint inspection of the impugned public premises by the revenue authorities of the State Government and the railway officials to decide whether the impugned public premises belongs to the railway authorities or not. 4.2. 4.1. The appellate authority allowed the appeals, taking note of the fact that the encroachers have not been given notice of the joint inspection of the impugned public premises by the revenue authorities of the State Government and the railway officials to decide whether the impugned public premises belongs to the railway authorities or not. 4.2. It is also brought to our notice that during the joint inspection by the revenue authorities of the State Government and the railway authorities on 4.5.1999, it was found that the impugned property belong to Railways. 4.3. When the State Government themselves conceded that the impugned land belongs to the Railways, there is no need to issue notice for the joint inspection to the encroachers, who have no say in the matter of deciding as to whom the public premises belong to. Therefore, non issuance of notice to the encroachers for joint inspection on 4.5.1999 would not, in any way, amount to violation of principles of natural justice nor would vitiate the eviction proceedings, because the scope and purpose of the joint inspection is only to decide whether the impugned premises is a poramboke land that belongs to the State Government or a public premises belonging to the railway authorities, but not to decide any rights conferred on the encroachers. It is, therefore, not open for the encroachers to contend that the Estate Officer has no jurisdiction to initiate the impugned eviction proceedings under the provisions of the Act as though the property belongs to the State Government. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the learned appellate authority had got himself misdirected in holding that principles of natural justice were violated due to non issuance of notice to the encroachers for joint inspection held 5.5. The above proceedings clearly belies the stand taken by the encroachers that the premises in question belongs to the State Government and therefore, the Estate Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to issue notice in Form A because the entire premises at Survey No. 722/2, Ward 5, Block 16, Vellore District, falls within the Railway limits. 5.6. The above proceedings clearly belies the stand taken by the encroachers that the premises in question belongs to the State Government and therefore, the Estate Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to issue notice in Form A because the entire premises at Survey No. 722/2, Ward 5, Block 16, Vellore District, falls within the Railway limits. 5.6. If that be so, we are unable to sustain the order of the appellate authority in arriving at a conclusion that the Estate Officer has not followed the procedure, because, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, notice in Form A was issued on 19.12.1997 and enquiry was conducted, objections of seven representatives were considered, and in order to appreciate the correctness of the stand taken by the representatives, a joint inspection was conducted by the revenue authorities of the State Government and the Railway officials, which revealed that the entire premises belong to railway and finally an order of eviction in Form B was issued on 3.6.1999. Since there is no procedural lapses required to be followed in the summary eviction proceedings under the Scheme of the Act, it may not be proper for the appellate authority to jump to the conclusion that the Estate Officer had not followed the procedure. The very object of the Act enabling the Estate Officer to evict the unauthorised occupants from the public premises by way of summary eviction proceedings is to protect the public property and to discourage the encroachments, as any further delay in evicting the encroachers would be a great danger. 5.7. Undoubtedly, it is not only the duty of the public authorities to ensure that the public premises are not encroached, but also it is the fundamental duty of every citizens not to encroach the public premises. In view of the reasons aforementioned, we find it difficult to sustain the orders of the appellate authority, and accordingly, the same are set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. 5. The above proceedings clearly belies the stand taken by the encroachers that the premises in question belongs to the State Government and therefore, the Estate Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to issue notice in Form A because the entire premises at Survey No. 722/2, Ward 5, Block 16, Vellore District, falls within the Railway limits. 5. No costs. 5. The above proceedings clearly belies the stand taken by the encroachers that the premises in question belongs to the State Government and therefore, the Estate Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to issue notice in Form A because the entire premises at Survey No. 722/2, Ward 5, Block 16, Vellore District, falls within the Railway limits. 5. If that be so, we are unable to sustain the order of the appellate authority in arriving at a conclusion that the Estate Officer has not followed the procedure, because, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, notice in Form A was issued on 19.12.1997 and enquiry was conducted, objections of seven representatives were considered, and in order to appreciate the correctness of the stand taken by the representatives, a joint inspection was conducted by the revenue authorities of the State Government and the Railway officials, which revealed that the entire premises belong to railway and finally an order of eviction in Form B was issued on 3.6.1999. Since there is no procedural lapses required to be followed in the summary eviction proceedings under the Scheme of the Act, it may not be proper for the appellate authority to jump to the conclusion that the Estate Officer had not followed the procedure. The very object of the Act enabling the Estate Officer to evict the unauthorised occupants from the public premises by way of summary eviction proceedings is to protect the public property and to discourage the encroachments, as any further delay in evicting the encroachers would be a great danger. 5. Undoubtedly, it is not only the duty of the public authorities to ensure that the public premises are not encroached, but also it is the fundamental duty of every citizens not to encroach the public premises. In view of the reasons aforementioned, we find it difficult to sustain the orders of the appellate authority, and accordingly, the same are set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Writ petition allowed.