ORDER The unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the Courts below are the petitioners. Their suit for declaration that the appellants are successors in title to certain land of the defendant Nos. 3 and 4. namely. Sule and Thakkar. who were said to he its owners, which formed a portion of land admeasuring 33 acres 2 guntas in Survey No. 103A/Pt. at Kirol and for injunction not to interfere with their possession etc. was dismissed by a single Judge sitting on the original side of the Bombay High Court. A Division Bench of the same Court dismissed the appeal No. 557/92. of the petitioner by the impugned judgment and decree D/- Jan. 31, 1994. The facts not in dispute are that a Notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was initially published on May 4, 1959 proposing acquisition of 48.26 acres of land in Survey No. 103A invoking the urgency clause under 17. The enquiry under S. 5A was dispensed with. A declaration under S. 6 was followed. Thereafter, another notification was issued on May 28, 1959 under S. 4(1) of the Act acquiring 13 acres and 33 gunta in Survey No. 228 situated at Kurla. When possession was handed over to the railways on May 24, 1960, it was found that they had got possession of an excess of 12 acres 12 guntas in Survey No. 103A. Therefore, third notification under S. 4(1) was published on July 13, 1965 and the enquiry under S. 5A was conducted and S.6 declaration was made. For the lands covered in the first two notifications, award was made on July 30, 1966 and for the land covered by the third notification an award was made on May 26, 1968. Thus, the award had become final. As stated earlier, possession was already taken and was handed over to the railways on Feb. 24, 1960. Consequently, the original owner Mrs. Maibai alias Jamnahai had been divested of her title and had no interest to alienate part of land which 3rd and 4th defendants claimed to have purchased from her under a sale deed Dt./-Aug. 21, 1966, in that it had. by then, stood vested in the railways free or all encumbrances. Thereby, the purchasers got tinder the sale deed no right, title or interest in the land which had gone to the Central Government by then. 2. 21, 1966, in that it had. by then, stood vested in the railways free or all encumbrances. Thereby, the purchasers got tinder the sale deed no right, title or interest in the land which had gone to the Central Government by then. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that defendant Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Sule and Thakkar, entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioners on Jan. 21, 1973 coupled with a power of attorney etc. and delivered possession of the land to the extent of 12 acres and 12 guntas. As stated earlier, possession was already taken over by the railways. After the award was made, the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 made an application before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming proportionate compensation for the lands said to have been purchased by them. The Land Acquisition Officer had not accepted it but made a reference to the Civil Court under S. 30. In the reference made to the High Court under S. 30. the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 remained ex parte and an award was made by the High Court declaring that Maibai alias Jamnabai was entitled to the entire compensation. That award also had become final. Though the petitioners subsequently gave up the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the successors in title to the lands purchased by Sule and Thakkar in respect of 33 acres and 2 guntas, claimed a declaration that the acquisition of land of 60 acres 38 guntas pursuant to the award Dt./-July 13, 1966 and May 26, 1968 as illegal, null and void and of no effect and injunction. 3. It is true that the trial Judge recorded a finding that the appellants were in possession of the land and directed them to give possession but ultimately the single Judge dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Division Bench found that possession was handed over to the railways and the railways had been in possession of the land. Shri Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, contended that there was a dispute as to the identification of the land. The petitioners land was not the subject-matter of the acquisition and that, therefore, when the learned trial Judge had found that possession of the land was with petitioners, the Division Bench had committed error in holding that the petitioners were not entitled to declaration or injunction. The petitioners land was not the subject-matter of the acquisition and that, therefore, when the learned trial Judge had found that possession of the land was with petitioners, the Division Bench had committed error in holding that the petitioners were not entitled to declaration or injunction. In view of the finding by the trial Court that the petitioners were in possession, unless they are lawfully dispossessed, no interference with their possession was called for and therefore, they are entitled to the injunction sought for. We find no substance in the contention. 4. It is seen that in a suit as originally framed, they sought for a declaration that the award made in respect of the land was void, inoperative and does not bind the petitioners. But that relief had been given up. Thereby, the title of the land of the railways have not been questioned. With the award made under S. 30. the vendors of the petitioners got themselves bound by the above award under S. 12 of the Act. It is also seen that the two awards had become final and possession was delivered to the railways by the Land Acquisition Officer on Feb. 24, 1960. Thus Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 had no ghost of right, title or interest in the lands acquired from the original owner Maibai. The said sale is a void sale and the petitioners, therefore, cannot derive any interest under the agreement of sale to resist the possession of the lawful owner nor could the declaration sought for be given. The question, therefore, is whether an injunction can be issued against the true owner. Issuance of an order of injunction is absolutely a discretionary and equitable relief. In a given set ot facts, injunction may be given to protect the possession of the owner or person in lawful possession. It is not mandatory that for mere asking such relief should be given. Injunction is a personal right under Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act. 1963; the plaintiff must have personal interest in the matter. The interest or right not shown to be in existence, cannot be protected by injunction. 5. It is equally settled law that injunction would not be issued against the true owner. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly rejected the relief of declaration and injunction in favour of the petitioners who have no interest in the property. The interest or right not shown to be in existence, cannot be protected by injunction. 5. It is equally settled law that injunction would not be issued against the true owner. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly rejected the relief of declaration and injunction in favour of the petitioners who have no interest in the property. Even assuming that they had any possession, their possession is wholly unlawful possession of a trespasser and an injunction cannot he issued in favour of a trespasser or a person who gained unlawful possession, as against the owner. Pretext of dispute of identity of the land should not he an excuse of claim injunction against true owner. 6. Under these circumstances, we do not find any ground warranting interference with the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. The special leave petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 30,000/- which shall he payable to Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. In case the petitioners do not pay the costs within two months, the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee could proceed to recover the same by resorting to execution. Petition dismissed. For Citation: 1995 AIR SCW 2425 Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.