JUDGMENT : SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J. 1. In both the Writ Petitions, the petitioners seek a direction from this Court to quash the eviction/show-cause notices dated 13.01.2025, restrain coercive dispossession and protect their possession and livelihood, contending that the impugned action violates statutory safeguards under the 2017 Act and the PPE Act, and offends principles of natural justice and Article 21. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case as narrated by the petitioners are as follows: (i) The dispute arises from eviction/show-cause notices dated 13.01.2025 issued by Senior Section Engineer (Works), East Coast Railways, Srikakulam Division (O.P. No.4) calling upon occupants to vacate alleged encroached railway/public land within 15 days. (ii) The petitioners claim to be landless/slum dwellers rehabilitated under Section 6 of the Odisha Land Rights to Slum Dwellers Act, 2017, and assert they have been residing since 2017 on small patches of land in Mouza Kapilapur/Kapilpur, Gunupur Tahasil/Municipality, District Rayagada. (iii) The petitioners’ case proceeds on the footing that land/allotment pertains to Plot No.54/1 (about 200 sq. ft. each, as pleaded), and that they have constructed temporary sheds/dwellings for residence and livelihood after such allotment/recommendation by the district administration. (iv) The petitioners rely on official indicia of settlement and residence such as allotment order(s)/Bhumi Adhikar Praman Patra (as pleaded), electricity and water connections, electricity bills, and MGNREGA job cards. (v) The petitioners assail the eviction notices as contrary to the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, alleging that no proceeding was initiated by the Competent Authority/Estate Officer and no hearing/show-cause opportunity was granted before directing vacation. (vi) In the State revenue counter (Tahasildar, Gunupur, O.P.3; filed on behalf of O.Ps.2 & 3), it is stated that a joint enquiry on 04.02.2025 was conducted by the Revenue Supervisor, Revenue Inspector and Amin, and an enquiry report/RoR were relied upon. (vii)As per the Tahasildar’s stand across the counters, the occupation is not uniform: some petitioners are stated to be on Government land (Khata No.59, Plot No.54/1, kisam “Patito/Patitikissam”), while some are stated to be on Railway land (Khata No.65) connected to Plot No.54/2 (rail line kisam) and, in one narration, Plot No.57/1—all in Mouza Kapilapur/Kapilpur. (vii)As per the Tahasildar’s stand across the counters, the occupation is not uniform: some petitioners are stated to be on Government land (Khata No.59, Plot No.54/1, kisam “Patito/Patitikissam”), while some are stated to be on Railway land (Khata No.65) connected to Plot No.54/2 (rail line kisam) and, in one narration, Plot No.57/1—all in Mouza Kapilapur/Kapilpur. (viii) The counters also dispute/qualify the petitioners’ claim of valid rehabilitation documents: in one version, it is stated that only some petitioners (e.g., petitioner nos.1 & 3 in one pleading) have Bhumi Adhikar Praman Patra, whereas in another version it is stated that petitioners have not produced Bhumi Adhikar Praman Patra for the railway plots, and are in occupation over railway land recorded in favour of the Railways. (ix) The Railway counter asserts that the Railways are custodian of railway land at Gunupur, and the SSE (Works) has duties under railway engineering/manual/code to prevent/remove encroachments and avoid development of easement rights, and that removal was sought without recourse to PPE Act where possible. (x) The Railway counter further states that earlier notices/show-cause notices dated 14.07.2023 and 27.11.2023 were issued and, after passage of time, the 13.01.2025 notices were issued as final notices to remove encroachments within 15 days. (xi) The Railway counter relies on stated Railway Board letters dated 26.11.2024 and 06.03.2025 and refers to directions/orders cited as SLP(C) No.19714/2021 and Delhi High Court W.P.(C) No.2743/2025 to justify intensified action against railway encroachments. (xii) Thus, the core factual controversy is whether the petitioners’ occupation is pursuant to lawful rehabilitation/allotment on government land under the 2017 Act, or whether (at least some petitioners) are occupying recorded railway land (Khata No.65/Plot No.54/2 and/or Plot No.57/1), in which event the Railways claim authority to remove encroachments. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions. (i) The eviction notices dated 13.01.2025 issued by O.P.4 (SSE/Works, ECoR, Srikakulam Division) are per se illegal, arbitrary, and inconsistent with Section 6 of the Odisha Land Rights to Slum Dwellers Act, 2017. (ii) The notices are contrary to the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, because no proper statutory proceeding was initiated by the Competent Authority/Estate Officer, and the notice is an impermissible shortcut. (ii) The notices are contrary to the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, because no proper statutory proceeding was initiated by the Competent Authority/Estate Officer, and the notice is an impermissible shortcut. (iii) The impugned action violates principles of natural justice, as no meaningful opportunity to show cause and be heard was afforded before directing eviction within 15 days. (iv) The petitioners assert they are rehabilitated/resettled landless persons/slum dwellers and have been in peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted possession since 2017 over the allotted/recommended plots and therefore cannot be branded as “unauthorised occupants.” (v) The petitioners contend that construction of temporary sheds/dwellings was done after due allotment/recommendation by the District Administration/Collector under the 2017 Act and is tied to residence and livelihood. (vi) The petitioners rely on provision of basic amenities (electricity/water), electric bills, and livelihood linkages such as MGNREGA job cards as corroboration of recognised rehabilitation/settlement. (vii) The petitioners contend that the Railways have no right, title, or interest over the plots they occupy (as per their pleaded allotment), and therefore the notices are without basis. (viii) The petitioners invoke Article 21 (livelihood/shelter dimension) and seek quashing of the notices and protection against dispossession, asserting that eviction without due process is unconstitutional. (ix) The petitioners plead lack of alternative efficacious remedy and seek writ intervention to quash Annexure-2 series notices and restrain eviction/disturbance. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The State revenue authority (Tahasildar, Gunupur) relies on a joint enquiry dated 04.02.2025 and asserts that the RoR/enquiry reveals mixed occupation: some petitioners on Government khata/Plot 54/1 (Patito/Patitikissam) and some on Railway khata/Plot 54/2 (rail line kisam) and, in another narration, Plot 57/1, recorded in favour of the Railways. (ii) The State/Railway stand disputes the petitioners’ sweeping claim of lawful allotment by asserting that Bhumi Adhikar Praman Patra/allotment documents are not uniformly available, and in some versions are stated to be not produced for the land found recorded as railway land. (iii) The Railways contend that the land in question (at least Plot 54/2 and/or Plot 57/1 under Khata 65) is railway land, and the petitioners are encroachers/unauthorised occupants on recorded railway property. (iii) The Railways contend that the land in question (at least Plot 54/2 and/or Plot 57/1 under Khata 65) is railway land, and the petitioners are encroachers/unauthorised occupants on recorded railway property. (iv) The Railways assert that the SSE/Works is the custodian responsible to protect railway land and to prevent/remove encroachments and avoid creation of easement rights, and therefore issuance of show-cause/eviction notices is within official duty. (v) The Railways contend that removal can be undertaken without recourse to the PPE Act, 1971 in cases where encroachment removal is possible administratively as per the railway manuals/codes, and hence the petitioners’ PPE-based challenge is overstated. (vi) The Railways state that earlier notices were issued on 14.07.2023 and 27.11.2023, and sufficient time/opportunity was already given before the final 15-day notice dated 13.01.2025, negating the allegation of natural justice violation. (vii) The Railways rely on stated higher-level directions, Railway Board letters dated 26.11.2024 and 06.03.2025, and cite SLP(C) No.19714/2021 and Delhi High Court W.P.(C) No.2743/2025 to justify strict enforcement for removal of encroachments from railway land in public/national interest. (viii) The Railways contend that no government allotment can override railway ownership, and any alleged allotment/recommendation over railway land is legally untenable; consequently, eviction action is justified and the writ petitions deserve dismissal. IV. EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL MATRIX: 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 6. The petitioners claim they were allotted the land in question under a rehabilitation scheme, but the official records tell a different story. The plots identified in the eviction notices (Plot No.54/2 and 57/1 in Khata No.65) are shown in the Revenue Record to be railway property, whereas Plot No.54/1 in Khata No.59 is “Patito” land (government land). No allotment orders or “Bhumi Adhikar Praman Patra” have been produced for the railway plots, only for the Patito plot. In short, the petitioners have not established any lawful entitlement to occupy the railway lands. As such, their presence on those plots is clearly unauthorized. 7. The Odisha Slum Act of 2017 may confer certain rights on slum dwellers in respect of state lands, but it cannot override the railways’ ownership of its own property. The Constitution places railways squarely under Union jurisdiction; no State Act can trump the Railways’ right to its registered land. As such, their presence on those plots is clearly unauthorized. 7. The Odisha Slum Act of 2017 may confer certain rights on slum dwellers in respect of state lands, but it cannot override the railways’ ownership of its own property. The Constitution places railways squarely under Union jurisdiction; no State Act can trump the Railways’ right to its registered land. In this case, even if the petitioners might be eligible for state allotment on Plot 54/1, that does not legalize their occupation of Plot 54/2/57/1. The law is well settled that one cannot claim title to a public service property merely because one has been settled adjacent to it. The railways, as custodian of their land, have the clear duty and power under the Railways Act to remove unauthorized encroachments on it. 8. It is true that Article 21 of the Constitution secures to every person the right to life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has held to include the right to shelter and livelihood. In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan , AIR 1997 SC 152 for example, the Court recognized that the right to shelter is a fundamental facet of right to life and that evicting pavement-slum dwellers would deprive them of their livelihood. The Court further acknowledged the State’s duty to provide for the housing of the poor and weaker sections. The relevant excerpts are produced below: "Such deprivation would not only denudes the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. The deprivation of right to life, therefore, must be consistent with the procedure established by law. In P.G. Gupta v. State of Gujarat, (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 182, another Bench of three Judges had considered the mandate of human right to shelter and read it into Article 19(1)(e) and Article 21 of the Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention of Civic, Economic and Cultural Rights and had held that it is the duty of the State to construct houses at reasonable cost and make them easily accessible to the poor. The aforesaid principles have been expressly embodied and in built in our Constitution to secure socio-economic democracy so that everyone has a right to life, liberty and security of the person. The aforesaid principles have been expressly embodied and in built in our Constitution to secure socio-economic democracy so that everyone has a right to life, liberty and security of the person. Article 22 of the Declaration of Human Rights envisages that everyone has a right t social security and is entitled to its realisation as the economic, social and cultural rights and indispensable for his dignity and free development of his personality. It would, therefore, be clear that though no person has a right to encroach and erect structures or otherwise on footpath, pavement or public streets or any other place reserved or earmarked for a public purpose, the State has the Constitutional duty to provide adequate facilities and opportunities by distributing its wealth and resources for settlement of life and erection of shelter over their heads to make the right to life meaningful, effective and fruitful. Right to live livelihood is meaningful because no one can live without means of his living, that is the means of livelihood. The deprivation of the right to life in that context would not only denude right of the effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life miserable and impossible to life. It would, therefore, be the duty of the State to provide right to shelter to the poor and indigent weaker sections of the society in fulfillment of the Constitutional objectives." 9. These principles guide the humane approach to slum eviction: authorities should see that relocation or rehabilitation schemes are in place and that eviction is carried out by a just, fair and reasonable procedure. 10. However, these constitutional safeguards do not give illegal occupants any absolute right to remain where they have no legal title. The Supreme Court in the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation , 1986 AIR 180 emphasized that even fundamental rights like life and livelihood may be curtailed according to procedure established by law. 11. Here, the impugned action, removal of encroachment from railway land, is squarely within law i.e. Section 147 of the Railways Act and related rules. The petitioners have not demonstrated that the notices were issued in bad faith or outside the Railways’ legal authority. On the contrary, the railway is simply exercising its statutory duty to keep its tracks and land clear. 12. Moreover, the petitioners’ reliance on prior notices and natural justice is misplaced. The petitioners have not demonstrated that the notices were issued in bad faith or outside the Railways’ legal authority. On the contrary, the railway is simply exercising its statutory duty to keep its tracks and land clear. 12. Moreover, the petitioners’ reliance on prior notices and natural justice is misplaced. This Court notes that the Railways had given ample notice to vacate. As the Supreme Court held in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (Supra), when encroachers are properly notified, the procedure would be considered as fail and formal hearing is not necessary in the factual situation. The Court held as follows: “It is stated in their affidavit that they are giving 21 days notice before taking action for ejectment of the encroachers. That procedure, in our view, is a fair procedure and, therefore, the right to hearing before taking action for ejectment is not everyone is served and if it is not possible for reasons to be recorded in the file, through fixture of the notice on the hutment, duly attested by two independent panchas. This procedure would avoid the dispute that they were not give opportunity; further prolongation necessary in the fact-situation. But the Commissioner should ensure that of the encroachment and hazard to the traffic and safety of the pedestrians.” 13. What is essential is that the notices be served or publicized (by affixture) so occupiers are informed. There is no suggestion here that the petitioners were never informed or given any chance; indeed the two earlier notices suggest the opposite. The petitioners have not pointed to any technical violation (such as failure to appoint an Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act) that is of such gravity as to confer a right to defy the law. 14. The law also provides mechanisms for the relief of the urban poor short of tolerating encroachment. In this context, the ruling of Sudama Singh v. Deepak Mohan Spolia , AIR OnLine SC 650. is instructive. There, slum-dwellers on a railway “right of way” could not be summarily denied relocation simply because of their location; the Supreme Court ordered that eligible occupants be considered for alternative accommodation. 15. Importantly, Sudama Singh (Supra) did not immunize illegal occupation of railway land. It merely required the authorities to consider rehabilitation for those evicted. By the same token, the petitioners here, if truly needy and eligible, may apply under the State’s slum-rehabilitation scheme for alternate allotment. 15. Importantly, Sudama Singh (Supra) did not immunize illegal occupation of railway land. It merely required the authorities to consider rehabilitation for those evicted. By the same token, the petitioners here, if truly needy and eligible, may apply under the State’s slum-rehabilitation scheme for alternate allotment. But that must be done through the proper statutory process, it cannot be forced by injunction against the Railway. In effect, the petitioners seek to use this Court’s writ power to bypass the normal procedures of land allotment and encroachment removal, and this cannot be permitted. V. CONCLUSION: 16. In sum, the petitioners have failed to make out any legal right to prevent removal from the railway land. Their fundamental-right arguments, while laudable in spirit, do not alter the settled fact that these are unauthorized encroachments on Central Government (Railways) property. Under the law, the Railways are entitled to reclaim their land, and the notices reflect an exercise of lawful power. 17. For these reasons, the Writ Petitions must fail. Accordingly, the impugned eviction/show-cause notices are not quashed or stayed. The Writ Petitions are dismissed. 18. Interim order, if any, passed earlier in any of the Writ Petitions stands vacated.