B. N. KIRPAL, R. K. ABICHANDANI, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants claim to be occupants of land at Surat which admittedly was land declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act 1976 which again admittedly is land belonging to the Government. ( 2 ) THE contention of the appellants is that they were in occupation since 1972 along with about 2000 other persons. ( 3 ) IN the affidavit-in-reply it has been categorically stated by the Competent Authority that action was taken under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act 1976 in the year 1977 declaring large area of the land in question as surplus. On 28th April 1977 Notification under Section 10 (1) of the said Act was published and objections were invited. No objections were filed and the final Notification under Section 10 was published on 24th November 1983 Notice under Section 10 (5) was issued on 6th January 1984 to the original landholder. An appeal which was filed was also decided by the Tribunal on 19th August 1985 and the order of the Competent Authority was upheld. The said order was challenged by way of Special Civil Application No. 5741 of 1985 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn. It is further averred in the reply affidavit that there was no person on the land in question since 1972 and vacant possession of the land was taken by the Competent Authority on 7th June 1984 Petitioner No. 1 himself was one of the signatories to the panchnama to the taking over of the possession in 1984. ( 4 ) THERE is no rejoinder affidavit filed rebutting any of the said averments in the reply affidavit. In the panchnama it has been stated that the Panchas were residing in the land nearby the land in question. Therefore it does appear that the appellants were not in occupation of any part of the land in question at least on 7th of June 1984 when possession was taken over. ( 5 ) IT is contended by Shri Mishra that the taking over of the possession was only on paper. Learned counsel cannot be permitted to make a statement of fact which is clearly contrary to the written document viz. panchnama and more so when there is no such averment in the writ petition. ( 5 ) IT is contended by Shri Mishra that the taking over of the possession was only on paper. Learned counsel cannot be permitted to make a statement of fact which is clearly contrary to the written document viz. panchnama and more so when there is no such averment in the writ petition. ( 6 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1972 should have been taken against the occupants of the land in question. The said occupants of the land in question are clearly encroachers on public land. All that the proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1972 if they are taken would result in is a notice being issued and after hearing appropriate orders passed. Even under the Public Premises Act if a person is an unauthorised occupant then physical possession can be taken. There can be a legitimate grievance of proceedings not being taken under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1972 if when such proceedings are taken there can be a valid defence. When it is admitted that the premises in question are public premises and that the appellants and the other persons in occupation thereof are admittedly unauthorised occupants then requiring proceedings to be taken under the Public Premises Act is an empty formality and a writ court ought not to have entertained a plea in this regard. ( 7 ) ENCROACHERS like the appellants are violaters of the law. They are occupying public land admittedly without a semblance of right or title. The Government is the rightful owner thereof and is therefore entitled to get back vacant possession of the land specially when the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act 1976 clearly provide that the land vests in the Government free of all encumbrances after the said land has been declared as surplus. ( 8 ) IT will not be proper exercise of the discretion to grant an injunction or stay which will have the effect of permitting an unauthorised occupant to continue to remain in unauthorised occupation and would prevent the original owner from getting back the possession. ( 8 ) IT will not be proper exercise of the discretion to grant an injunction or stay which will have the effect of permitting an unauthorised occupant to continue to remain in unauthorised occupation and would prevent the original owner from getting back the possession. The abuse of the process of the law must be stopped and unless and until it can be shown that serious prejudice on merits is caused by not taking recourse to the P. P. Act no injunction or stay should be granted which will have the effect of protecting an unauthorised occupant of public property. ( 9 ) IT is also submitted that there is violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. We cannot agree with this submission. An encroacher and/or a trespasser on public land cannot be heard to complain of violation of Article 21 when he is in wrongful occupation of the land in question. A person who approaches the Court for discretionary relief must do so with clean hands. A violater of law on the other hand would not be entitled to any such relief and we are not satisfied that the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution are applicable in this case. ( 10 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. .