JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and other respondents. 2. Since all the writ applications involve common question of facts and law and with the consent of the parties, all the writ applications are being disposed of by this common oral judgment. 3. This batch of writ applications have chequered history. Earlier, the petitioners have approached this Court against the decision of the respondent Special Officer, Motihari Municipality. The order was interfered by the Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7345 of 1999 on the ground that the order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing. After the order was passed in favour of the petitioners, the matter was examined by the Special Officer, Motihari Municipality and on consideration of the entire materials, the respondent Special Officer came to the conclusion that there is no need to cancel settlement in favour of the petitioners. However, another proceeding with regard to the encroachment over public land was drawn against the petitioners. The Circle Officer, Sadar in encroachment proceeding has come to a conclusion that the petitioners are encroachers. Against the order of the Circle Officer, the petitioners approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5922 of 2010. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority. The Court granted indulgence to the petitioners to the extent that the delay in filing appeal shall be condoned. After the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5922 of 2010, the matter was examined by the Collector, East Champaran, Motihari in Encroachment Appeal No. 56 of 2011-12. The Collector dismissed the Encroachment Appeal by detailed order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are displaced persons and their shop/land have been settled by the competent authority and in fact they were running shop for their livelihood. Learned counsel further submits that the land, in question, is Gair Mazarua Malik and, as such, the respondent Motihari Municipality has every jurisdiction to settle the land to the displaced persons so that they may earn their livelihood. 5. In a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not in a position to enter into the controversy whether the land is a public land or not. 5. In a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not in a position to enter into the controversy whether the land is a public land or not. The competent authority under the Public Land Encroachment Act have already determined the issue and held out that the petitioners are encroachers over the public land and the order passed by the Circle Officer, who is the competent authority under the Act was approved by the Collector, Motihari in Encroachment Appeal, bearing Encroachment Appeal No. 56 of 2011-12. 6. The only issue before this Court which require to be decided is the right of livelihood of the petitioners, as they claimed that they are displaced persons and as a Welfare State, it is the responsibility of the State to provide opportunity to earn bread and butter. 7. The Apex Court has occasion to examine the right of Street Hawkers in Saudan Singh and Ors. vs N.D.M.C. and Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 1153 , where the Apex Court had noted the right of squatting as integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Though this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Collector in the Encroachment Appeal, but at the same time, the Court is of the considered view that the Welfare State has to adopt welfare measures so that the petitioners, who claims to be the displaced persons and they were allotted land for running shops with a view to earn bread and butter from such shops be extended some protection. The respondent District Magistrate, Motihari is required to explore possibility of alternative arrangement so that the petitioners and their family members may not be rendered jobless and suffer penury on account of decision to remove encroachment without providing alternative arrangement for their livelihood. 8. The Court hope and trust that the District Magistrate, Motihari shall explore the possibility of allotment of suitable place to the petitioners so that the petitioners and their family may not be affected adversely. Necessary decision in this regard may be taken by the respondent District Magistrate within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid, all the writ applications stand disposed of.