Valmiki J Mehta, J.@mdashThis petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the concurrent order and judgment passed by the
courts below; of the trial court dated 4.6.2013 and the first appellate court dated 28.4.2014 respectively; by which the injunction application of the
petitioners/plaintiffs has been dismissed. The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs was that they had purchased the suit property being no. HR-12C,
Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi admeasuring 170 sq. yds. from one Smt. Meera Kanwaria through usual documentation of Agreement
to sell, General Power of Attorney etc dated 3.11.1998. It was further the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that the possession of the suit property
was given to the petitioners by Smt. Meera under the said documentation. It is further argued that government had taken ""paper possession"" only
and consequently, the petitioners/plaintiffs being in possession of the suit property, the action of the respondents i.e. North Delhi Municipal
Corporation and Delhi Development Authority in demolishing the boundary wall around the subject plot is illegal.
2. Before this Court, it is argued that possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs be protected, and the respondents cannot demolish a boundary wall
which is in fact not permissible by the Municipal bye-laws.
3. In my opinion, there is no merit in the present petition inasmuch as, relief of injunction is a discretionary relief, and to get such a relief
petitioners/plaintiffs must show basis with respect to title and possession of the suit land. So far as the possession is concerned, and which aspect in
the present case is also related to title, it is the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs itself that ""paper possession"" was taken. Once therefore, possession
was taken of the suit land by the governmental authorities under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 no title remained either of the predecessor of the
petitioners/plaintiffs or of the plaintiffs. A reference to the pleadings in the suit also shows that the wall of the petitioner stood demolished and,
therefore, actually, the petitioners/plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property on the date of the filing of the suit, and even if such a
possession was there it would have been of an encroachment of a person on government land.
4. The first appellate court has in this regard made correct observations in para 8 of the impugned judgment and which para 8 reads as under:-
8. The appellants claim their right over the suit property on the basis of certain documents like General Power of Attorney, Possession Letter,
Affidavit, Will, Receipt for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs as executed by one Smt. Meera in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs. The appellants also claim that
in an earlier suit as filed by Smt. Meera against the appellants a compromise took place and the said Smt. Meera handed over the suit property to
the appellants after receiving a consideration of Rs. 5 lacs. The record shows that the appellants have failed to show clear title of Smt. Meera in the
suit property and when the title of the person from whom the appellants got the suit property was itself not clear, the appellants cannot claim any
ownership in it. The appellants themselves admit in the plaint that the whole of the land on which the suit property is situated was owned by Ramjas
Foundation. The appellants have failed to show that the suit property was duly transferred by Ramjas Foundation in favour of Smt. Meera. The
appellants also admit in para no. 16 of the plaint that the government got the possession of the whole of the land on 13.09.2001 and then it was
handed over by the government to the DDA i.e. the defendant no. 2. The only objection of the appellant is that the said possession was only a
paper possession and the appellants have infact holding the possession of the suit property till date. The respondent no. 2 placed on record a
notification to show that after acquisition, the land on which the suit property situates, has already been handed over to it. When according to the
appellants themselves, after acquisition the whole of the land on which the suit property situates has been handed over by the government to the
DDA, the objection of the appellants that the possession was merely a paper possession is not tenable at all. When land on which the suit property
situates has already been acquired and its possession has been handed over to DDA, the appellants cannot claim any right, specially when they
have no clear title over it.
5. Counsel of the petitioners wanted to cite judgments which hold that unless land acquisition proceedings are complete, ""paper possession"" taken
cannot confer any right upon the governmental authorities, however, there is no dispute to the legal proposition that unless land is acquired the
governmental authorities cannot have title to the land, however, in the present case, it is only a mere assertion of the petitioners/plaintiffs that the
possession taken was ""paper possession"", and consequently, I refuse to agree with the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs that
only ""paper possession"" was taken and not actual possession. Also, the aspect of actual physical possession of the governmental
authorities/respondents is clear, and as stated above, from the fact that the endeavour of the petitioners/plaintiffs to encroach upon the suit land by
constructing boundary walls was defeated and the boundary walls with respect to the suit property were demolished by the
respondents/governmental authorities.
6. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are discretionary and are meant to further ends of justice. Powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India cannot be exercised in favour of a person who is endeavouring to encroach upon government land or is an encroacher of
government land. Dismissed.