ORDER : (Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent not to take any coercive steps from forcibly dispossessing and evicting the petitioner from their residential house situated at No.134/1, Thangavelu street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017 during the pandemic COVID-19 period.) 1. The respondents 4 and 5 are unnecessary parties in this writ petition and their names are deleted. 2. On consent given by either side, the main writ petitions have been taken up for final disposal. 3. These writ petitions have been filed for the issue of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps and forcibly dispossess the petitioners from the subject property. 4. The case of the petitioners is that they are residing at Thangavelu Street, T.Nagar, for a very long time. It is an admitted case that the property belongs to the Corporation of Chennai. The Thangavelu Street Civic Association had filed a writ petition before this Court in WP No.20546 of 2000, for a direction to remove the encroachments put up in the said street. The Hon’ble First Bench by an order dated 04.08.2016, disposed of the writ petition by directing the District Collector, Chennai to look into the grievance expressed by the occupants of the property and decide as to whether any patta can be issued to the occupants or in the alternative whether they can be rehabilitated to some other place. The Hon’ble Division Bench directed that this exercise should be undertaken within a period of two months. The Division Bench also further directed the Corporation of Chennai to ensure that the full width of the road and the margin are kept free of any encroachments. 5. The further case of the petitioners is that the District Collector even without considering as to whether patta can be issued to the occupiers of the property, has straight away taken a decision to evict the occupiers and to provide them with an alternative accommodation. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent are taking hasty steps to evict all the occupants during this pandemic situation and they are not even been ensured an alternative accommodation. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent are taking hasty steps to evict all the occupants during this pandemic situation and they are not even been ensured an alternative accommodation. The learned counsel further submitted that some breathing time must be given to the occupants even if they are to be accommodated in an alternative place. 7. Mr.Rajasekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent submitted that the alternative place has already been chosen at Okkiyam Thoraipakkam and already 77 persons have been identified and the petitioners are in Sl.Nos. 34 & 35. The learned counsel submitted that all the occupants were taken to Okkiyam Thuraipakkam and they were shown their alternative accommodation. The learned counsel submitted that the entire list will be handed over to the Corporation of Chennai and the Corporation of Chennai will have to ensure that the identified occupants are rehabilitated into the alternative accommodation at Okkiyam Thoraipakkam. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Corporation of Chennai, submitted that the petitioners do not have any right to squat upon the property belonging to the Government and as per the directions given by the Hon’ble Division Bench, alternative accommodation has already been identified for 77 occupiers. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the petitioners will have to necessarily vacate from the present place and shift to Okkiyam Thoraipakkam. 9. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. 10. The respondents 1 to 3 are in the process of shifting 77 identified occupiers to the alternate place at Okkiyam Thoraipakkam. This is being done pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble First Bench in WP No.20546 of 2000. The Hon’ble First Bench had only observed in the order that there are two alternatives through which the problem can be resolved. The first alternative is to see whether a patta can be issued and the second alternative is to provide for an alternative accommodation. The authorities have chosen the second alternative and are providing accommodation at Okkiyam Thuraipakkam to 77 identified occupiers. The petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right for the issuance of patta. The first alternative is to see whether a patta can be issued and the second alternative is to provide for an alternative accommodation. The authorities have chosen the second alternative and are providing accommodation at Okkiyam Thuraipakkam to 77 identified occupiers. The petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right for the issuance of patta. Such a right cannot be claimed in view of the fact that the property in question is a Poramboke land belonging to the Government. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the authorities choosing to provide alternative accommodation to 77 identified occupants. 11. The only other question is whether any breathing time has to be given to the occupants before they are shifted to the alternate place. Considering the pandemic situation and also considering the fact that the occupants will have to get prepared to move into the alternative accommodation provided at Okkiyam Thoraipakkam, this Court deems it fit to give some time to the occupants to move out of the property. 12. In view of the above, the 77 identified occupants, including the petitioners are given four weeks time to vacate and hand over possession to the Corporation of Chennai and move into the alternative accommodation at Okkiyam Thoraipakkam. On the expiry of four weeks, if the possession is not handed over, it is left open to the Corporation of Chennai to take possession with necessary police help. After the expiry of four weeks, the earlier direction given by the Hon’ble First Bench to the effect that the entire width of the road and its margin must be kept free from any encumbrance, should be ensured by the Corporation of Chennai. Both the writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.