JUDGMENT : S. Siri Jagan, J. The petitioners are occupiers of certain land, which according to the petitioners are vested with the 4th respondent Municipality. They have been issued with Exts. P6 to P8 orders directing them to vacate the property, which is specifically mentioned in the notice, on the ground that the same is Government land. The petitioner is challenging the same on two grounds. The first is that the land having been vested with Municipality, the respondents 2 and 3 have no manner of power to initiate proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act to evict the petitioners. The second is that Exts. P6 to Ext. P8 have been issued in violation of principles of natural justice, insofar as the petitioners have not been issued with a notice or granted a hearing in respect there of. The 5th respondent has filed a counter-affidavit, according to which Exts. P5 to P8 are not fresh proceedings and it was earlier preceded by a notice and hearing and the petitioners were heard earlier. Therefore, the orders now issued to them is only a continuation of earlier proceedings. They have also produced documents in support of that contention. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. As far as the first contention of the petitioner is concerned the issue is squarely covered by two decisions of this Court namely, Saidalavi Haji, N.D. and Others Vs. Secretary, Tanur Grama Panchayat and Others and Anish v. District Collector 2012 KHC 2386 : 2012 (2) KLT 7 in which it has been specifically held that even in respect of lands vested with the local authority, the power to evict encroachers is concurrent under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and the Rules under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act or the Kerala Municipality Act. That being so, the petitioners cannot now take the stand that the respondents 2 and 3 cannot initiate proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, to evict the petitioners from the land in question. 4. That being so, the petitioners cannot now take the stand that the respondents 2 and 3 cannot initiate proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, to evict the petitioners from the land in question. 4. As far as the other contention is concerned, the petitioner's contention is only that the road, which is stated to be in their possession is no longer a road, since a ring road has been constructed by the municipality, for which the petitioners have surrendered their land free of costs on the assurance of municipality that they will be allowed to continue to occupy the present land. That does not make the land in question any the less the Government land. Even if the Government land is vested with Municipality, the Municipality has no manner of right to alienate the same to anybody, without concurrence from the Government. The Municipality cannot simply allow the petitioners to occupy the Government land unauthorisedly, on the ground that the petitioners have surrendered other land free of cost. From the pleadings and Exhibits produced by the petitioners themselves, it is abundantly clear that they are in occupation of Government land. As such, they cannot continue to occupy the same on technical contentions. Even otherwise the 5th respondent has produced evidence to show that proceedings were with notice to petitioners and petitioners had in fact been heard earlier and Exts. P6 to P8 are the continuation of the same. It is clear from Ext. P5 petition filed by the petitioners before the 2nd respondent also. Apart from that, when it is abundantly clear that the land is Government land, the petitioner cannot continue to occupy the same unauthorisedly. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Dismissed.