JUDGMENT 1. These Writ Petitions are directed primarily against the decision taken by the Government of Tamil Nadu to handover land in S.Nos. 536, 537 & 540 in Perumbakkam Village to an extent of 17.90 hectares, 18.84.0 hectares and 0.81.0 hectares respectively to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Slum Clearance Board’] and the consequential entry permission granted in G.O. Rt. No.393 Revenue Department dated 19th August 2010. 2. The Writ Petitions are essentially of three categories. The first category relates to the claim for grant of patta on the basis of the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.Nos. 854 & 34, Revenue Department dated 30th December 2006 and 23th January 2006 respectively. The second batch relates to the entry permission given by the Government as per Order in G.O.Rt. No.393 Revenue Department dated 19th August 2010. The petitioners in the third batch of cases, seek a Writ of Mandamus not to demolish their houses on account of the pendency of their claim before the Government for issuance of patta. 3. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these Writ Petitions, I consider it not necessary to narrate the facts of each individual case separately. Back Ground: 4. The petitioners are stated to be the occupants of lands in S.Nos. 536, 537 & 540 of Perumbakkam Village, which according to them, was classified as Natham Poromboke. Petitioners are all poor and downtrodden people and they have no shelters of their own to reside. The petitioners having found that considerable extent of Natham Poromboke were lying idle, occupied portions of the said land and constructed huts. Petitioners have occupied portions of the said land and constructed huts. Petitioners have been residing in the houses constructed by them in the poromboke land for the last many years. They have all been given electricity and water connection by the authorities. Some of the Petitioners have been paying property tax in token of recognition of their status as hut dwellers in Natham Poromboke land. The petitioners wanted the Government to give them Patta in respect of the land in their possession by extending the benefits of the orders in G.O.Ms. Nos. 854 & 34 dated 30th December 2006 & 23rd January 2008. During the pendency of the applications submitted by the individual Petitioners for issuance of Patta, the Government issued orders in G.O. Ms. The petitioners wanted the Government to give them Patta in respect of the land in their possession by extending the benefits of the orders in G.O.Ms. Nos. 854 & 34 dated 30th December 2006 & 23rd January 2008. During the pendency of the applications submitted by the individual Petitioners for issuance of Patta, the Government issued orders in G.O. Ms. No.393 dated 19th August 2010, allotting the land in S.Nos. 536, 537 & 540, to the Slum Clearance Board to put up multistoried tenements under a Central Government Scheme. 5. The Petitioners have taken up a specific contention that given the classification of the land as Natham Poromboke, the Government have no right to give entry permission to the Slum Clearance Board. The Petitioners have challenged the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No.393 dated 19th August 2010 on several grounds. It is the grievance of the Petitioners that notwithstanding the orders in G.O.Ms.Nos. 854 & 34 dated 30th December 2006 & 23rd January 2008 respectively, and during the currency of their applications seeking grant of Patta, the Government have issued Orders in G.O.Rt. No. 393 Revenue Department dated 19th August 2010. According to the Petitioners, they are not against the Construction of tenements. They are interested only to protect their huts and it was only for the said purpose, applications were given for issuance of Patta. The Government, notwithstanding the beneficial Orders issued earlier, promising grant of Patta, subsequently issued orders in G.O.Ms. No.393 dated 19th August 2010, giving entry permission to the Slum Clearance Board, virtually negativing their claim for Patta. The Petitioners wanted this court to quash the entry permission, protect their houses and to issue a positive direction to the District Collector to issue Patta on the basis of the orders issued by the Government. 6. The Slum Clearance Board filed a Counter Affidavit in the respective Writ Petitions, disputing the claim made by the Petitioners. According to the Slum Clearance Board, a decision was take to construct 24000 tenements with all modern facilities including lift. Each tenement will have a plinth are of 390 Sq.ft. with a multipurpose room, bed room, kitchen, balcony and an individual bath and toilet. The project was initiated taking into account the interest of large number of shelter less poor who were evicted for major infrastructure development projects carried in the urban area as well as the outskirts of Chennai. Each tenement will have a plinth are of 390 Sq.ft. with a multipurpose room, bed room, kitchen, balcony and an individual bath and toilet. The project was initiated taking into account the interest of large number of shelter less poor who were evicted for major infrastructure development projects carried in the urban area as well as the outskirts of Chennai. The Government issued permission to the Slum Clearance Board in G.O.Ms. No.51 Revenue Department dated 24th January 2007 to enter upon the land in S.Nos.479/2, 482 to 485, 509 to 511, 516 to 518,523, 524/1, 542/2, 527, 528,538, 539/2, 540/1,541 to 544 & 546, admeasuring 46.65 hectares. It was followed by another Government Order in G.O.Ms. No.393 dated 19 th August 2010, granting permission to enter upon the land in S.Nos.536, 537 & 540/2, admeasuring 34.55 hectares in Perumbakkam Village of Tambaram Taluk, Kanchipuram District. The Slum Clearance Board has taken possession of the land for implementing the housing scheme. However, the petitioners who are rank tresspassers squatted in the property in various survey numbers which falls within the location of the project floated under “Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Rehabilitation Mission”. According to the Slum Clearance Board, G.O.Ms. Nos. 854 & 34 dated 30th December 2006 & 23rd January 2008 does not give any right to the petitioners to occupy the land allotted to the Board. Those two Government Orders were issued for regularizing the encroachments found in poromboke land, in case, the Government is not in need of the land. However, the subject land, which is now in the possession of the Slum Clearance Board, is required for construction of multistoried tenements. Therefore, there is no question of issuance of patta to the Petitioners. The Board also Defended the Government order in G.O.Ms.No. 393 Revenue Department dated 19th August 2010. The Board contended that the subject land is not a Grama Natham. The survey records indicate the classification of the land as Manavarai Punjabi Tharisu and as such, the claim made by the Petitioners that it is a Grama natham is totally false. Rival Submissions: 7. I have heard Tvl. Ashok Menon, T.Mohan and N. Umapathi, learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the different categories of Petitioners. I have also heard Mr. Gomathi Nayam, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the slum Clearance Board. 8. Mr. Rival Submissions: 7. I have heard Tvl. Ashok Menon, T.Mohan and N. Umapathi, learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the different categories of Petitioners. I have also heard Mr. Gomathi Nayam, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the slum Clearance Board. 8. Mr. T.Mohan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of one batch of Petitioners, who have made a claim for issuance of patta on the basis of the Government Orders in G.O.Ms. Nos. 854 & 34 dated 30th December 2006 & 23rd January 2008 contended that the Petitioners who are all poor people, living below the poverty line and without shelters to live, constructed small huts and started living in Grama Natham land for the past several years. The Government have already recognized their possession. It was only on arriving at a satisfaction that several homeless people have occupied Government lands, orders were issued in G.O.Ms. Nos. 854 & 34 dated 30th December 2006 & 23rd January 2008 whereby and whereunder, a decision was taken to issue patta to all such encroachers. Even though originally ten years period of continues occupation was stipulated, it was subsequently reduced to five years and thereafter and thereafter, to three years. The learned Counsel, by placing reliance, on various proceedings, contended that the Petitioners have already approached the District Collector and claimed patta on the basis of Government Orders. Some of the Petitioners have obtained order from this Court directing consideration of their applications. Few of them obtained interim protection not to evict them from their houses during the currency of their applications for grant of patta. The learned counsel contended that the Government have no right to issue an order giving entry permission without processing the same by the Board of Revenue. According to the learned Counsel, the Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms. No.393 dated 19th August 2010 without application of mind. The handing over note indicates that the possession of land was given by a lower level officer of the Revenue Department. The learned counsel, by placing reliance on the Board’s Standing Orders, contended that the impugned order in G.O.Ms. No.393 dated 19th August 2010 was issued in violation of the Revenue Standing Orders relating to assignment of Government land. The handing over note indicates that the possession of land was given by a lower level officer of the Revenue Department. The learned counsel, by placing reliance on the Board’s Standing Orders, contended that the impugned order in G.O.Ms. No.393 dated 19th August 2010 was issued in violation of the Revenue Standing Orders relating to assignment of Government land. The learned counsel further contended that the Slum Clearance Board have not obtained environmental clearance and as such, the Board is not entitled to put up building in the land in question. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are all project affected parties and as such, they are having every right to raise their objection while conducting public hearing. In case the Petitioners are evicted in the meantime, they would be prevented from attending the statutory public hearing. Therefore, the learned counsel wanted this court to set aside the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No.393 dated 19th August 2010 and to consider the claim of the Petitioners for issuance of patta based on the series of Government Orders ending with G.O.Ms. No.34 dated 22nd January 1998. 9. Mr. Ashok Menon, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of another set of petitioners, contended that Government have absolutely no right to handover possession of the property to the Slum Clearance Board in view of the classification of the land as Natham Poromboke. The learned Counsel by placing reliance on the documents documents produced by the petitioners contended that the Government recognized their possession and as such, the petitioners were all justified in their contention that they should be given patta. According to the learned counsel, Slum Clearance Board with the assistance of police, made several attempts to evict the petitioners forcefully and in fact, some of the huts were partially demolished. The learned counsel while deprecating the action taken by the Slum Clearance Board to demolish houses in a high handed manner, submitted that the Government being a welfare state, should always stand for the welfare of public at large. The learned counsel, by placing reliance on some of the orders passed by this court, contended that the applications for patta are still pending before the District Collector and as such, the Government was not correct in handing over the land to the slum clearance board, thereby preventing the petitioners from claiming right under the beneficial Government Orders. 10. Mr. The learned counsel, by placing reliance on some of the orders passed by this court, contended that the applications for patta are still pending before the District Collector and as such, the Government was not correct in handing over the land to the slum clearance board, thereby preventing the petitioners from claiming right under the beneficial Government Orders. 10. Mr. N. Umapathi, learned counsel appearing for another batch of petitioners by reiterating the submissions made by the other learned counsel strenuously contended that the Government having issued orders promising patta in respect of the encroached portion, cannot be heard to say at a subsequent point of time that patta would not be given. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioners occupied the subject land long ago and no attempt was made by the Government at any point of time to evict them. The petitioners have therefore entertained a reasonable belief that they would be given patta. The Writ petitioners have spent all their hard earned money for construction of huts and in case those huts are demolished at this distant point of time, they would be thrown on streets. 11. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the land in question was classified as Manavari Punja Tharisu. The land being one owned by the Government, was rightly given to a Department constituted for Slum Clearance and Rehabilitation of slum dwellers. The Government have taken a policy decision to construct multistoried tenements with all the modern facilities. The subject land was handed over to the Slum Clearance Board only for this purpose. The Board has already constructed major portion of tenements in other parts of the land. The Petitioners being encroachers have no right to retain the land. The learned Additional Advocate General on instructions from the Slum Clearance Board, made a statement that alternate accommodation will be given in a case the petitioners are in a position to establish their possession by valid records. The learned Additional Advocate General while concluding his arguments submitted that the very same issue was considered by a learned Single Judge of this court in W.P. No.776 of 2010. The Writ petition was dismissed and it was confirmed in Appeal. Therefore, it is not permissible to put the very same issue for adjudication once again. Whether Slum Creation or Slum Clearance: 12. The Writ petition was dismissed and it was confirmed in Appeal. Therefore, it is not permissible to put the very same issue for adjudication once again. Whether Slum Creation or Slum Clearance: 12. Before dealing with the individual Writ Petitions and to resolve the issue by protecting the interest of the encroachers and the larger public interest to construct 24000 tenements, I consider it necessary to deal with certain larger questions of public importance raised by the slum dwellers and encroachers based on constitutional rights and in the light of the Government Orders issued from time to time agreeing to give patta to the encroachers by encouraging “slum creation”. Larger question: 13. The State of Tamil Nadu is stated to be the most urbanized State in the country in terms of percentage of urban population to the total population. The need for urban development resulted in large scale migration of unemployed labour from villages to cities. The city of Chennai is not an exception to this phenomena. The labourers from other parts of the state in general and the neighbouring Districts in particular migrated to the city of Chennai. Due to employment potential and reasonable wages, the State of Tamil Nadu in general and Chennai City in particular witnessed large scale migration from other states like Bihar, Manipur, West Bengal, Assam and also from Nepal. These migrant workers contribute considerably for the growth of this State. They are employed in various spheres like construction, hospitality, roads and bridges, drainage and to provide other infra-structural facilities. These migrant labourers are now indispensable part of our urban development. It is not possible for these poor people to purchase land or houses in the city on account of the involvement of huge cost. The migrant labourers are therefore, forced to erect huts in public land. The slum areas and colonies have developed only in this manner. 14. The Supreme court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., 1985 (3) SCC 545 , while considering the case of eviction of pavement dwellers of Bombay, observed that “the pavement dwellers live in Bombay because they are employed in Bombay and they live on pavements because there is no other place where they can live”. The same is the case of Chennai. We are seeing large number of slums and slum dwellers in Chennai without any basis amenities. The same is the case of Chennai. We are seeing large number of slums and slum dwellers in Chennai without any basis amenities. Though we are depending on these people for several of our needs, the fact remains that we are not concerned about their well being. 15. The Supreme Court in Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., 1996 (2) SCC 549 , indicated the responsibility of the State to provide shelters to the citizens. The Supreme Court said: “ Right to shelter when used as an essential requisite to the right to live should be deemed to have been guaranteed as a fundamental right. As is enjoined in the Directive Principles, the State should be deemed to be under an obligation to secure it for its citizens, of course subject to its economic budgeting. In a democratic society so as to physically, mentally and intellectually equip oneself to improve his excellence as a useful citizen as enjoined in the Fundamental Duties and to be a useful citizen and equal participant in democracy. The ultimate object of making a man equipped with a right to dignity of person and equality of status is to enable him to develop himself into a cultured being. Want of decent residence, therefore, frustrates the very object of the constitutional animation of right to equality, economic justice, fundamental right to residence, dignity of person and right to live itself.” 16. The Supreme Court in Ram Lila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, 2012 (2) Scale 682 , declared that the right to sleep is a basic right guaranteed by our constitution. It is not possible to enjoy this basic right to sleep without a proper place to sleep. 17. The Government is now trying to evict the encroachers by using bulldozers and with the assistance of police force. While doing so, the Government conveniently omitted to consider the basic fact that it was the earlier Government Orders promising patta to the encroachers which resulted in the mushroom growth of slums in the State. 18. The Government originally issued Orders in G.O.Ms. No. 854 Revenue Department 30th December 2006 recognizing encroachments in Governments poromboke lands in case the encroachers were in occupation of land for more than ten years. The Government assured that patta would be given to the encroachers if the lands are not required for Government purpose. 18. The Government originally issued Orders in G.O.Ms. No. 854 Revenue Department 30th December 2006 recognizing encroachments in Governments poromboke lands in case the encroachers were in occupation of land for more than ten years. The Government assured that patta would be given to the encroachers if the lands are not required for Government purpose. Subsequently, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms. No. 34 dated 23rd January 2008, reducing the period of five years. The Government issued another order in G.O.Ms. No.43 Revenue Department daed 29th January 2012 further reducing the period of encroachment to three years to claim regularization of encroachment. These Government Orders encouraged even land grabbers to encroach Government lands and to put up huts. During the course of hearing, I was informed that local musclemen and land grabbers constructed large number of huts and placed their yes-men in charge of these huts so as to keep possession and to sell the land to developers at a later point of time, after getting Patta. Since these encroached lands are all situated in covetable localities, naturally, it would fetch considerable amount, in case the Government gives them Patta. The fragmented lands are often sold to builders and real estate lobby, in return of huge amount resulting in development of high rise buildings. This is another facet of slum clearance. The successive Governments adopted this policy on account of various reasons. The policy paid premium to the land grabbers and local dada’s and ultimately the builders, and they became rich at the cost of poor people. 19. The series of Government Orders offering patta to encroachers contributed considerably for the evolution of slum areas and slum colonies. There is no second opinion that the state should take every effort to provide shelter to the poor people. Government have taken a policy decision earlier to distribute available lands to the poor and downtrodden. Instead of implementing the said policy, another policy conferring ownership on encroachers was taken, resulting in large scale encroachment of public property. The Slum Clearance Board virtually became a Slum Creation Board on account of this changed policy and resultant creation of slums. 20. Government have taken a policy decision earlier to distribute available lands to the poor and downtrodden. Instead of implementing the said policy, another policy conferring ownership on encroachers was taken, resulting in large scale encroachment of public property. The Slum Clearance Board virtually became a Slum Creation Board on account of this changed policy and resultant creation of slums. 20. The Supreme court in Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India, 2000 (2) SCC 679 , while dealing with the case of pollution in Delhi, observed that rewarding an encroacher on public land with a free alternative site is like giving a reward to a pickpocket. 21. Let me now consider the issues raised by the Petitioners one after another. 22. The writ petitioners have taken up a specific contention that the land in question was classified as Grama natham and as such, the Government have no right to allot the land to the Slum Clearance Board. Discussion: Nature of Land: Finding: There is no merit in the contention on account of the entries found in the revenue records. The Government have produced the entire records relating to the revenue classification. The revenue records in original produced before me contain a clear entry classifying these lands as Manavarai Tharisu. Mr. Ashok Menon, learned Counsel for the Petitioners personally verified those entries and having satisfied factually, submitted that he is not pressing the point regarding revenue classification and the authority of Government to give the land to the Slum Clearance Board on account of the nature of classification. The substantial contention taken in respect of the invalidity of Government order in G.O.Ms. No. 393 is no more available to the Petitioners on account of the records produced by the Government indicating the correct classification of land. When it is made out that the lands were all classified as “Manavarai Tharisu”, necessarily, the Government have got absolute right to deal with the property. Therefore, I reject the contention with respect to the classification of land. Invalidity of the land grant proceeding: 23. By placing reliance on various provisions of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue, Mr. Mohan and Mr. Umapathy, learned counsels contended that the entry permission given to the Slum Clearance Board has no legal sanction. Finding: The impugned order in G.O.Ms. Invalidity of the land grant proceeding: 23. By placing reliance on various provisions of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue, Mr. Mohan and Mr. Umapathy, learned counsels contended that the entry permission given to the Slum Clearance Board has no legal sanction. Finding: The impugned order in G.O.Ms. No. 393 dated 19th August 2010 indicates that the Government have considered the issue in larger public interest and arrived at a decision that the land should be given to the Slum Clearance Board for the purpose of construction of tenements. The Board of Revenue is not an Authority above the Government. The Government being the custodian of land, considered the supervening public interest and granted entry permission to the Slum Clearance Board. The transfer in question is not an ordinary land transfer by the Government to a private individual or from one Department to another. The transfer is essentially an assignment of Government land to specified Department for a specific public purpose. The land is given only for putting up tenements and not for a commercial purpose. The impugned order itself shows the background facts resulting in granting entry permission to the Slum Clearance Board. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention with respect to the invalidity of the Government Order granting entry permission to the Slum Clearance Board. Right to get Patta. 24. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners made a common submission that the Petitioners are all entitled to the benefits of the Government Orders issued from time to time with respect to issuance of Patta. It was contended that by issuing the orders in G.O.Ms. No.393, dated 19th August 2010, the Government have virtually taken away the Petitioners’ right to claim Patta. According to the Petitioners, it is nothing but giving by one hand and taking it away by another hand. The Petitioners strenuously contended that they should be given with respect to the land in their direct possession. Finding: The Government Orders referred to by the Petitioners and more particularly Orders in G.O.Ms. No. 854 & 34 dated 30th December 2006 and 23rd January 2008 indicate that the Government have agreed to give Patta in case the Petitioners fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The Government Orders contain a rider to the effect that grant of Patta would be considered only in case the Government is not in need of the land in question. No. 854 & 34 dated 30th December 2006 and 23rd January 2008 indicate that the Government have agreed to give Patta in case the Petitioners fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The Government Orders contain a rider to the effect that grant of Patta would be considered only in case the Government is not in need of the land in question. The Government Orders very clearly stipulated that only in case the Government does not want a particular land, claim for issuance of Patta in respect of that land would be entertained. The Government by issuing orders in G.O.Ms. No. 393 dated 19th August 2010 clearly expressed its mind that the subject land is required for a specific public purpose. The series of Government Orders issued in respect of Patta should be read in toto. The question of granting Patta does not arise in respect of a land which the Government considers it necessary to retain in Public interest. Environmental clearance: 25. Mr. Mohan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Slum Clearance Board have not obtained environmental clearance for construction of 24,000 tenements. According to the learned Counsel, Petitioners are all project affected people and as such, they are entitled to make their submissions before the statutory authority while conducting public hearing. The learned Counsel contended that in case the Petitioners are evicted, they would lose their chance of representation during the time of public hearing. Finding: The Substantial issue raised in the batch of cases is whether the Government was correct in handing over the land to the Slum Clearance Board. The question of construction tenements would arise only after obtaining permission from the Planning Authority. The Petitioners are not correct in their conclusion that the Government would not obtain necessary Statutory clearance before putting up tenements. It is a matter of record that the Slum Clearance Board have already utilized a major part of the land by constructing multistoried tenements. The present proposal is to make use of the remaining land for construction of tenements. Since the Petitioners have not raised any contention with regard to the environmental clearance in the Writ Petitions, and in the absence of necessary pleadings, it is not proper for this court to consider the said issue by taking inspiration from the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Denial of hearing to the project affected during public hearing: 26. Denial of hearing to the project affected during public hearing: 26. It is the grievance of the Petitioners that in case they are evicted, they would lose a chance to take any part in the public hearing and to submit their views. There is no merit in this contention. Even if the Petitioners are evicted, still they could attend the public hearing, in view of their status as project affected people. There is no merit in the contention that status quo should be preserved till the statutory authority conducts a public hearing. 27. The Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. V. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, 1997 (11) SCC 121 , indicated that in case the encroachment is of recent origin, no notice is required to be given. In case, the Government have taken a notice is necessary. The Supreme Court indicated that two weeks notice for removal would be sufficient compliance. 28. The Slum Clearance Board have already given notice to the Petitioners. In any case, in view of the decision taken by the Slum Clearance Board to provide alternative accommodation to the encroachers on proof of their possession, the question regarding opportunity of hearing before eviction does not arise for serious consideration. Alteration accommodation: 29. The next question is whether it is permissible to deprive shelter without providing alternative accommodation. The Supreme Court in Olga, indicated that there cannot be a universal rule that in all cases of removal, alternative accommodation should be given to the displaced people. The Supreme Court observed that each case requires consideration on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 30. When this Batch of cases came for final hearing earlier, I have directed the learned Additional Advocate General to take instructions from the Slum Clearance Board as to whether alternative accommodation could be given, in case this Court is of the view that the petitioners have to handover possession of the land to the Board. The learned Additional Advocate General on instructions from the Slum Clearance Board informed that the claim of the Petitioners would be considered and they would be provided alternative accommodation in case they are in a position to prove their possession by producing valid documents. The learned Additional Advocate General on instructions from the Slum Clearance Board informed that the claim of the Petitioners would be considered and they would be provided alternative accommodation in case they are in a position to prove their possession by producing valid documents. In fact, on the basis of such undertaking, I have disposed of Forcible eviction: W.P. No.25474 of 2009 on 18th September 2012 by directing the Petitioners therein to produce proof of residence before the Board and on such production, the Slum Clearance Board was directed to provide alternative accommodation. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that similar indulgence would be shown to the Petitioners also in case they produce documents such as ration card, electricity card or voter’s identity card to prove their possession of the house in question. The said undertaking is recorded. 31. The supreme court in Olga indicated the need for providing shelter near the work place. The Supreme Court said: 55. There is no short term or marginal solution to the question of squatter colonies, nor are such colonies unique to the cities of India. Every country, during its historical evolution, has faced the problem of squatter settlements and most countries of the under-developed world face the same problem today. Even the highly developed affluent societies face the same problem, though with their larger resources and smaller populations, their task is far less difficult. The forcible eviction of squatters, even if they are resettled in other sites, totally disrupts the economic life of the household. It has been a common experience of the administrators and planners that when resettlement is forcibly done, squatters eventually sell their new plots and return to their original sites near their place of employment. Therefore, what is crucial importance to the question of thinning out the squatters’ colonies in metropolitan cities is to create new opportunities for employment in the rural sector and to spread the existing job opportunities evenly in urban areas. Apart from the further misery and degradation which it involves, eviction of slum and pavement dwellers is an effective remedy for decongesting the cities. Apart from the further misery and degradation which it involves, eviction of slum and pavement dwellers is an effective remedy for decongesting the cities. In a highly readable and moving account of the problems which the poor have to face, Susan George says: “So long as thoroughgoing land reform, re-grouping and distribution of resources to the poorest, bottom half of the population does not take place, third world countries can go on increasing their production until hell freezes and huger will remain, for the production will go to those who already have plenty- to the developed world or to the wealthy in the Third World itself. Poverty and hunger walk hand in hand.” 32. I am now confronted with a difficult task of balancing the rights of slum dwellers who are in unlawful occupation and the interest of the society at large. 33. The Supreme Court in M.P. Special Police Establishment v. State of M.P., 2004 (5) CTC 454 (SC) : 2004 (8) SCC 788 , indicated the jurisdiction of Writ Court to do complete justice. The Supreme Court observed: “31. ……. The Writ Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as also this Court under Articles 136 & 142 of the constitution can pass an appropriate order which would do complete justice to the parties.” 34. The Courts have to come to the help of needy people to ensure them a decent place to sleep. The Petitioners are not demanding farm houses or mansions. Their demand is very limited. The request is to provide at least a minimum area to put up a hut. The right to life guaranteed to the citizen would become meaningless in case State is not to able to provide even this minimum facility. In a case of this nature, it is necessary to strike a balance between the individual interest and the social interest. Overall conclusion: 35. The Government being the custodian of public property possessed the inherent right to deal with the property in larger public interest. The Government having found that the subject land was required for a public purpose, rightly given entry permission to the Slum Clearance Board. The substantial contention raised with respect to the classification of the land is found to be wrong. There are no valid grounds made out to invalidate the Government Orders giving entry permission to the Slum Clearance Board. The Government having found that the subject land was required for a public purpose, rightly given entry permission to the Slum Clearance Board. The substantial contention raised with respect to the classification of the land is found to be wrong. There are no valid grounds made out to invalidate the Government Orders giving entry permission to the Slum Clearance Board. Therefore, I reject the contention with respect to the legality and correctness of the Government Order dated 19 August 2010. 36. The Government Orders in G.O.Ms. No.854 & 34; dated 30th December 2006 & 23 January 2008, provide for regularization of encroachments by issuance of Patta, Only if the Government forms an opinion that the said land is not required for any other public purpose. Since the Government have already indicated that the land, where the Petitioners’ have put up huts, is required for a public purpose for putting up tenements for slum dwellers, there is no question of considering the case of the Petitioners for grant of Patta. In fact, the Government Orders no where provide that the land in occupation of the encroachers would be given without any demur. So long as the condition regarding the need of the Government to preserve the land remains, the Petitioners cannot be heard to say that they should be given Patta. Therefore, I reject the contention raised by the Petitioners on the basis of the Government Orders in force with respect to the grant of Patta. 37. There is no difficulty in these cases to give alternative accommodation to the Petitioners who are in possession of documents to substantiate their long and continuous possession. The Slum Clearance Board has agreed to rehabilitate all these slum dwellers by providing them alternative accommodation. Final Disposition: 38. 37. There is no difficulty in these cases to give alternative accommodation to the Petitioners who are in possession of documents to substantiate their long and continuous possession. The Slum Clearance Board has agreed to rehabilitate all these slum dwellers by providing them alternative accommodation. Final Disposition: 38. Therefore, by taking into account the undertaking given by the Slum Clearance Board, I am inclined to give the following directions: (i) The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board is directed to provide alternative accommodation to the Petitioners, in any of the tenements, either constructed in the adjacent land at Perumbakkam Village or in any other residential projects, subject t production of proof of their occupation; (ii) The Petitioners are directed to prove their possession of the land/ hut in question by producing anyone of the documents like ration card, electricity card or voter’s identity card; (iii) The application for allotment should be made before the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Circle II, Chennai, on or before 15th December 2012. (iv) The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board is directed to process the applications taking into account the documents; and issue allotment letters to the eligible applicants on or before 31st December 2012; (v) The allottees should be given alternative accommodation immediately. They should be given ten days time from the date of handing over the alternative accommodation to vacate and handover vacant possession of the subject land/houses/huts, to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. (vi) The Petitioners who are not in possession of valid documents referred to above to prove their occupation, will be given thirty days time from today or from the date of rejection of their claim, to vacate their houses/huts/land. 39. The Writ Petitions are disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Concluding remarks 40. Before concluding, I consider it appropriate to quote the following observation of Supreme Court in K.Chandru v. State of T.N., 1985(3) SCC 536 : “9. We are satisfied, on a careful consideration of the statements contained in the counter-Affidavits filed on behalf of the Respondents, that the Government of Tamil Nadu has adopted a benevolent and sympathetic policy in regard to the slum dwellers. Steps are being taken for the purpose of improving the slums and wherever they cannot be improved, alternative accommodation is provided to the slum dwellers, before they are evicted. Steps are being taken for the purpose of improving the slums and wherever they cannot be improved, alternative accommodation is provided to the slum dwellers, before they are evicted. In view of this position, we do not consider it necessary to issue any writ or direction to the Government of Tamil Nadu. We will only express our confidence that the Government will continue to evince the same dynamic interest in the welfare of the pavement dwellers and slum dwellers. We may remind the Government, if at all, of what the Collector of Madras, Shri Badrinath, has stated in his Report: “The motto of slum clearance is: God revealeth in the smile of the poor”. Let the poor smile for a while.”