JUDGEMENT M.Y. EQBAL, CJ. 1. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner against the order dated 22.03.2012 passed in W.P.No.26894 of 2007, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent District Judge, the Nilgiris (Appellate Authority) relating to the order passed in C.M.A.No.16 of 2006 dated 19.07.2007. 3. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal, are stated herein below:- The appellant’s case is that she is in possession of an extent of 330 sq. ft. land bearing Door No.88/868, Ooty Road, Coonoor for over 25 years. The said property belongs to the government and it has been described as ‘Saalai’ (road) in the revenue records. In the said land the appellant writ petitioner put up a tin sheeted structure for her residential purpose and also running a small tea shop, to eke out her livelihood. Since, the revenue authorities started interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the tea shop, she filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4561 of 1992. This Court on 27.07.1999 passed an order stating that since the respondents had not taken steps to evict other persons who are also occupying the lands near the bus stand, the petitioner could not be evicted until such time as the revenue authorities decided to take steps to evict all the persons occupying the revenue land. The appellant writ petitioner, has filed another writ petition in W.P.No.6462 of 1992 to restrain the revenue authorities from evicting her from the land in question without following the due process of law. The said writ petition was disposed of adopting the direction given in the earlier writ petition viz., W.P.No.4561 of 1992. Thereafter, the appellant - petitioner decided to demolish the present structure and re-construct a pucca building in the said land. She also gathered building materials for that purpose. But, all of a sudden she was caused with a notice dated 02.11.2001 by the Senior Section Engineer, Southern Railway, Coonoor directing her to stop construction on the land in question, as the said land belongs to the railways. According to the appellant writ petitioner, the land in question belongs to the State Government and she was also paying B-Memo Charges for the said land. According to the appellant writ petitioner, the land in question belongs to the State Government and she was also paying B-Memo Charges for the said land. It is stated that the Assistant Railway Officer, RPF, Southern Railway, Udhagamandalam had instituted a criminal proceeding before the Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam in S.T.C.No.5781 of 2001 under Section 147 of the Railway Act alleging trespass of the land by the appellant-writ petitioner. In the said case, the Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam by his order dated 10.07.2007 clearly observed that the respondent-railways has failed to prove that they are the owners of the land in question. It is stated that the officials of the respondent-railways on several occasions tried to evict the appellant - writ petitioner forcibly. The grievance of the appellant writ petitioner is that they did not do so against the similarly placed persons, who are running a petrol bunk and a mechanic shop, nearby the petitioner’s tea-shop. In view of the continuous eviction threat, the appellant writ petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.No.2486 of 2002 for restraining the respondent-railways from evicting her from the land in question. In the said writ petition an interim order permitting her to use and enjoy the property belonging to her and restraining her from putting up any construction on the railway land was passed. 4. While being so, on 28.09.2006, the appellant-writ petitioner was issued with a show cause notice by the 2nd respondent under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. She was directed to attend a personal hearing on 12.10.2006. On 12.10.2006, she filed a detailed objection to the show cause notice questioning the very authority of the 2nd respondent to issue such show cause notice, as the land in question does not belong to the railways. She has also produced the B Memo Charges levied by the revenue authorities in respect of the land in question. According to the appellant-writ petitioner the 2nd respondent received her objections, but did not give her an opportunity to put forward her case in detail during the personal hearing. By the order dated 27.10.2006 the 2nd respondent declared the appellant-writ petitioner as a trespasser of the land belonging to the railways. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Udhagamandalam by filing C.M.A.No.16 of 2006. By the order dated 27.10.2006 the 2nd respondent declared the appellant-writ petitioner as a trespasser of the land belonging to the railways. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Udhagamandalam by filing C.M.A.No.16 of 2006. The learned District Judge by his judgment dated 19.07.2007 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant writ petitioner. 6. The appellant writ petitioner then filed W.P.No.26894 of 2007. The learned single Judge by the impugned order dated 22.03.2012 dismissed the writ petition observing that if the petitioner is the owner of the land, nothing prevented her from establishing her title by filing a regular title suit and the limited avenue open to the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act has been exhausted and the Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the Estate Officer. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal the appellant has preferred the present writ appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned order contending inter alia that it is per se erroneous and without any basis. Learned counsel submitted that the judgment of the District Judge passed in the Appeal is also devoid of merit and suffers from non-application of mind. According to the learned counsel, the respondents 2 to 4 have failed to prove their ownership over the land in question, especially when the appellant had categorically disputed the very right/authority of the railways over the said land. It is contended that the land in question belongs to the State Government and the revenue authorities were collecting B-Memo Charges from the appellant for her use and occupation of the land. 8. We do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that respondents 2 to 4 have to prove their ownership over the land in question is wholly unacceptable. Admittedly, the appellant claims possession of the land in question, and therefore, it is for the appellant to prove that she is continuing her possession by virtue of her own title. It appears from the judgment passed by the District Judge in the Appeal that the land in question was surveyed by a qualified Surveyor and the plan filed by him reveals that the appellant is in unauthorised occupation of the railway land in T.S.C./9/1. It appears from the judgment passed by the District Judge in the Appeal that the land in question was surveyed by a qualified Surveyor and the plan filed by him reveals that the appellant is in unauthorised occupation of the railway land in T.S.C./9/1. In the Appeal before the District Judge, at the instance of the appellant, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to survey the land and found out the measurement of the land in occupation of the appellant. The Advocate Commissioner with the help of a qualified Surveyor inspected the property and filed his report along with a plan before the District Judge, the Nilgiris. The learned District Judge, the Nilgiris considered the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner which clearly indicated that the appellant encroached the railway land. She also encroached certain extent of land owned by the Highways Department. Considering these facts and evidence, the learned District Judge, the Nilgiris dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein. 9. In the aforesaid premises, the learned single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant herein holding that the appellant has no title over the land in question, which is a railway land. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.