Usha Mehra ( 1 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 8 herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioners and respondent No. 9. Along with the said suit the said plaintiffs filed an application seeking interiminjunction against the present petitioners as well as DDA under Order 39rules 1 and 2. The case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court was thatthey were tenants in respect of their respective portion for the last more than9 years under the present petitioner i. e. defendant No. 2 before the Trialcourt. It was further alleged that at the time of letting out the premises,the defendant No 2 assured them that he was owner and landlord of theproperty However during the course of the trial, the defendant No. 2 tookthe plea that he was neiother the owner of the suit preimises nor let out thesame to the plaintiffs DDA was impleded as defendant No. 1. In its written statement DDA took the plea that Khasra Nos 37/3,4,7, 8 and 14 ofvillage Khureji Khas had been acquired vide award Nos. 22/70-71 and thepossession of the same had already been taken over by the DDA. Whilecontesting the application it was further pleaded by the DDA that plaintiffshave unauthorisediy put up Khokhas on the acquired land which were liableto be removed. The Trial Court aftef going through the record found noprima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and hence dismissed the application. According to the Court below the land had been acquired by the government and it being government property, therefore, no person has a right toconstruct any khokhas or raise structures thereon. Since the plaintiffs wereunauthorised occupants of the. . . land, hence no case is made out to grantinterim injunction. ( 2 ) AGAINST the order oftha k^triied Sub Judge, the plaintiffs tiled anappeal which was listed before Shri S. N. ijhingra, Additional District Judge. Delhi. The learned Add]. District Judge not only allowed the appealbut made certain observations against which the present petition has beenpreferred. ( 3 ) NOTICE of this revision petition was duly served on respondents 1, 4to 8. So far as respondent No. 2 and 3 are concerned, the petitioner gavethem up from the arrey of respondents. Since the served respondents did notappear, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte. The respondent No. 9dda filed the reply and supported the case of the petitioner. So far as respondent No. 2 and 3 are concerned, the petitioner gavethem up from the arrey of respondents. Since the served respondents did notappear, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte. The respondent No. 9dda filed the reply and supported the case of the petitioner. I have givenmy thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the petitioner whichare; supported by the respondent-DDA. Admittedly, the khokhas of respon-dents 1,4 to 8 are built on Khasra No. 33/7/4/8/14 of Village Khurejee Khasthe land of these khasras measuring five acres belong io DDA as it wasacquired by the Delhi Administration through award No. 22/70-71 leaving noright, title or interest in any party. Prior to these khasras being acquired thepetitioner has been in occupation of this land. But after it was acquired thepetitioner surrendered the possession to DDA. Since the petitioner is asociety dealing with charitable purpose, it therefore applied to the DDA forallotment of land for constructing a hospital as well as essential staff quarters. The Lt. Governor after considering the application of the petitioner allottedtwo acres of developed land to the petitioner against a consideration ofrs. 1. 97 lakhs. The rest of the three acres of land remained with the DDA. fhe respondents 1 to 8 had squattered overthis land which belongs to DDA. The DDA wanted to remove these encroachera for the purpose of wideningof the main Patparganj road in village Khureji Khas. Further the formalpossession of the land was handed over to the petitioner on 27th February,mw but the regular possession could not be handed over as portion of theland measuring about 300 square metres was under unauthorised encroach-ments. The remaining land of three acres meant for community facilities wasalso under encroachment. ( 4 ) HOW the respondents 1 to 8 came in possession of these lands wasnot the question for consideration betol-e the first appellate Court becausethe day the suit was filed respondents 1 to 8 were encroachers on the publicland which was meant for widening of the road and for community facilities. Their possession was prima fade unauthorised. The learned Additional Districtjudge fell in error in observing that. "the ODA was going to reward Vivekanend Pratishthan for itsunauthorised act of illegal occupation of government land by hand-ing over the land to the Pratishthan. Their possession was prima fade unauthorised. The learned Additional Districtjudge fell in error in observing that. "the ODA was going to reward Vivekanend Pratishthan for itsunauthorised act of illegal occupation of government land by hand-ing over the land to the Pratishthan. The same DDA, who wasgoing to reward Vivekanand Pratishthan with five acres of landwanted to bulldoze the shops/khokhas which were rented out by thevivekanand Pratishthan on the unauthorised occupied land of DDA. Thus by bulidozing these shops DDA now ^ants to further rewardvivekanand Pratishthan for second illegal act of giving the unauthorised land on rent to some persons and earning from that illegalrent. . . . . . . . . . . . From this one thing is very obvious that big encroachers and sharks like Vivekanand Pratishthan had big connectionsin DDA with the result that they get acres of land allotted in theirnames which was in their unauthorised occupation and the hammerof demolition/dispossession fails on those poor persons who had noconnections in DDA. "in fact the observations of the Additional District Judge are contrary to therecord. The petitioners surrendered the land to the DDA after the samewas acquired by the Delhi Administration. Thereafter the petitioner appliedfor the land and paid the consideration for the same pursuance to which outof five acres or two acres of land was allotted in favour of the petitioner. Sothe Additional District Judge was not right when he observed that the petitionersare big encroachers or sharks or had any connection with the DDA. Theseobservations are made out of emotions than based on legal rights of theparties. There is no question of poor or rich. The Additional District Judgewas to decide the case on merits but from the observations made by him. Itappears that he exceeded his jurisdiction by ignoring the legal position as wellthe facts on record. Admittedly the respondents 1 to 8 are unauthorisedlyoccupying the land belonging to the DDA. The question for considerationbefore the Court was whether they had any right and if not then can thedda be injected from demolishing the unauthorised construction and disposing them which the Additional District Judge never dealt. All his observationsappear to be figmentatioii of his own imagination and not born out from therecord. The question for considerationbefore the Court was whether they had any right and if not then can thedda be injected from demolishing the unauthorised construction and disposing them which the Additional District Judge never dealt. All his observationsappear to be figmentatioii of his own imagination and not born out from therecord. The learned Sub-judge while dismissing the application of respondents 1 to 8 took into consideration the prima facie case, the balance ofconvenience and the irreparable loss and after discussing the merits of thecase came to the conclusion that no prima facie right of occupation has beenmade out by these plaintiffs and therefore rightly rejected the application forinterim injunction and I am in full agreement with the decision of the learnedsub-Judge. I accordingly accept the revision petition, set aside the impugnedorder passed by the Additional District Judge and upheld the order passed by thelearned Sub-Judge, Shri A. S. Yadav.