As per case facts, multiple writ petitions were filed by petitioners, identified as encroachers, challenging eviction notices from the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board for lands they occupied in ... slum areas. These evictions were planned for demolition and reconstruction. Petitioners argued that the Board failed to follow the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1971, specifically regarding notification under Section 11, and that their right to livelihood, as per `Olga Tellis`, was being violated. They also claimed the land was "Government poromboke" and not Board property. Original allottees intervened, stating they had already vacated for reconstruction and had re-accommodation certificates. The petitioners sought to quash eviction notices and secure in-site or alternate accommodation. The question arose whether the eviction notices were valid and if encroachers had a right to allotment in the same place, especially considering the Act's provisions and the rights of original allottees. Finally, the High Court ruled that petitioners are encroachers with no inherent right to allotment in the subject land, which is intended for original allottees. While slum dwellers' rights are protected, public land misuse is not condoned. The Board, as a concession, would provide alternate accommodation to *eligible* encroachers in other projects per welfare schemes. The Writ Petitions were dismissed, and petitioners were directed to vacate within six weeks.