Arun B. Saharya ( 1 ) THE petitioners had filed this petition initially in October, 1994 seeking a writ of mandamus for directing respondents 1 and 2- Union of India and Lt. Governor of Delhi respectively to institute an independent enquiry into the actions taken by the other respondents in collusion with one another against the petitioners and their family members and for a mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to restore to the petitioners from the respondents and in particular respondents 16 and 17 possession of House No. E-224, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. ( 2 ) IT was alleged in the writ petition, inter alia, that the respondents, including senior police officers, in collusion with each other, had involved the petitioners in a large number of false criminal cases, that the petitioners were in an illegal manner dispossessed of their Sainik Farm property, and that the respondents had forged and manufactured various documents with a view to legalise their otherwise illegal trespass in the said property. ( 3 ) DURING pendency of the petition, it appears that the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi entrusted the investigation of FIR No. 259/94 lodged by the petitioners at P. S. Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi to the CBI, who registered an FIR under Section 120-B read with Section 420/467/471 Indian Penal Code against some of the respondents. The CBI is also seized of a complaint made by petitioner No. 2 on 4th of April 1994 at police post Sainik Farm, P. S. Ambedkar Nagar. Proceedings in respect of those matters, on the basis of intimation submitted by the CBI under Section 165 Cr. P. C. , are pending in the Court of Shri V. K. Jain, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi. ( 4 ) ON 28th of March 1995, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made a statement that the petitioners were not pressing the first part of the prayer regarding enquiry into the allegations of harassment and registration against them of the various criminal cases. Thus, the prayer in the petition was restricted only to mandamus for restoration of possession of the said Sainik Farms house. Thus, the prayer in the petition was restricted only to mandamus for restoration of possession of the said Sainik Farms house. ( 5 ) SINCE the petitioners have invoked equitable jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we directed the petitioners to satisfy us, at least prima facie, that they have lawful title to the property of which possession is sought to be restored and that they had approached the Court with clean hands. ( 6 ) IT was averred in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that petitioner No. 2 had purchased an open piece of land bearing NO. E-244, measuring 500 sq. yds. in Sainik Farms in 1991 by a registered sale-deed and constructed a huge bungalow thereon, which is the subject matter of the present case. Documents showing the petitioners title to the land and lawful construction of the house, however, were not filed. So, we directed the petitioners by our order dated 28th of March 1995, inter alia, to produce those documents. ( 7 ) PETITIONER No. 1 has filed an affidavit, attested on 5th of April 1995, along with copies of certain documents. The case set up by the petitioners in paragraphs 3 to 7 of the affidavit is reproduced below:- "3. That in relation to the first point I humbly submit that the property in question was initially owned by four persons namely Net Ram son of Harbhaj (half share ). Bhim Singh, Tej Ram and Gian Singh s/o (half share), residents of village Madangari, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. The land in question admeasuring 10 Biswas falls in Khasra No. 456 Khirki Teh. Mehrauli, New Delhi. The said land was sold by the aforesaid owners by sale deed dated 18. 11. 1981 to one Smt. Jaishree wife of Shri Paras Ram. The sale deed was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Delhi. Copy of the same is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure a . 4. That Smt. Jaishree subsequently transferred/assigned the land in question in favour of Shri Anil Kapoor by deed dated 30. 9. 1988, copy whereof is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure b . 4. (Renumbered ). That Shri Anil Kapoor entered into a transaction with the petitioner No. 2 on 11. 11. 1991 in respect of the land in question. 4. That Smt. Jaishree subsequently transferred/assigned the land in question in favour of Shri Anil Kapoor by deed dated 30. 9. 1988, copy whereof is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure b . 4. (Renumbered ). That Shri Anil Kapoor entered into a transaction with the petitioner No. 2 on 11. 11. 1991 in respect of the land in question. An agreement to sell in favour of petitioner No. 2 was executed between Shri Anil Kapoor and petitioner NO. 2 in pursuance whereof the entire sale consideration was received by Shri Anil Kapoor from petitioner No. 2 and possession delivered to her in part performance of the agreement to sell. Shri Anil Kapoor also executed a Will dated 11. 11. 1991 and the general power of attorney in favour of petitioner No. 2 on the same day. The will and the power of attorney were got duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar at Delhi and Palwal respectively. The deponent is annexing herewith as Annexure c collectively, copies of the agreement to sell, possession letter, will and the general power of attorney aforesaid. 5. That the deponent humbly submits that the averments made in the writ petition to the effect "that the petitioner No. 2 purchased an open plot of land bearing No. E-224, measuring 500 sq. yds. in Sainik Farms in 1991 by registered sale deed and. . . . . . . " was made on the understanding of the petitioners that the accumulative effect of the execution of the documents at Annexure c collectively is that it tantamounts to a registered sale deed. The deponent humbly submits that pertinently the DDA also recognises and takes cognizance of similar transactions inasmuch as the DDA allows the conversion of lease hold rights into free hold rights at the behest of the persons holding the power of attorney, agreement to sell, will and possession of the property concerned. The deponent further submits that the petitioner No. 2 is in possession in part performance of an agreement to sell whereunder the entire sale consideration has been paid to the vendor. 6. The deponent humbly submits that the petitioners were also delivered the original title deeds of Smt. Jaishree and Shri Anil Kapoor when the transaction was entered into with Shri Anil Kapoor in November, 1991. 7. 6. The deponent humbly submits that the petitioners were also delivered the original title deeds of Smt. Jaishree and Shri Anil Kapoor when the transaction was entered into with Shri Anil Kapoor in November, 1991. 7. That the petitioners constructed the property in question as stated in the writ petition by spending their own funds in excess of Rs. 30 lakhs. The deponent humbly submits that the issue with regard to the regularisation of the entire colony known as Sainik Farms is pending consideration of the government since long. The said colony has not been taken over by the civil authorities. However, the deponent humbly submits that the colony called Sainik Farms has been provided with electricity, telephone connections and the law and order is controlled by the police authorities who have established the police chowki in Sanik Farms as yet. The deponent understands that the building plans in relation to Sanik Farms are not being entertained by the civic authorities for - sanctioning of construction activities. " (Emphasis added) 8. Bare perusal of the documents marked Annexure A, Annexure B and Annexure C (collectively), however, demonstrates the baseless and misleading claim of the petitioners title to the land. Sale-deed dated 18th of November 1981 (Annexure A) executed by Net Ram and others in favour of Smt. Jayshree clearly recites that the sale-deed was in respect of agricultural land and that the said land stands notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . It has been disguised in paragraph 4 of the affidavit as if Smt. Jayshree " transferred/assigned the land in question" by the subsequent deed dated 30th of September 1988 (Annexure B ). This document is titled as assignment DEED . The subject matter of assignment was merely the right to receive compensation for the acquired land. The Deed expressly recites all particulars which clearly show that not only a notification under Section 4 had been issued but a declaration under Section 6 and an award also had been made by theGovernment and the land had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. This is amply bore out from the following excerpts taken from annexure B:- AND WHEREAS the aforesaid land was notified u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, vide notification No. F. 9 (16)/80-Landb dated 5. 11. This is amply bore out from the following excerpts taken from annexure B:- AND WHEREAS the aforesaid land was notified u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, vide notification No. F. 9 (16)/80-Landb dated 5. 11. 1980 and u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, vide notification No. F. 9 (25)/ 85-Landb dated 7. 6. 1985 which has been acquired by the Govt. /delhi Administration vide Award No. 20/87-88 dated 5. 6. 1987 of Village Khirkee, by the Land of Acquisition Collector, (ME) Delhi. The award No. 20/87-88 was announced on 5. 6. 1987 but no payment has been made so far. AND WHEREAS the Assignor has not received whole or any part of the compensation on account of acquisition of the land of her share of 10 biswas under the said award. "x x x x x x x x "now THIS ASSIGNMENT DEED WITNESSETH AS UNDER: That in full and final consideration of a sum of Rs. 1,31,250/ - (Rupees one lac thirty one thousand two hundred and fifty only) which has already been paid by the Assignor to the Assignee vide Manager s Cheque No. 851118 dated 29. 9. 1988 for Rs. 1,31,250. 00 drawn on UCO Bank, Defence Colony Branch, New Delhi. . . . . " ". . . . . ASSIGNOR doth hereby sell, transfer, convey and assign absolutely the compensation amount with all rights, interests, (sick), shares and claims and actionable claims of the said compensation. . . . . " (Emphasis added) Here, we may also note the contingent provision made in paragraph 8 of the Assignment Deed, which could operate only if the land were to be released or de- notified from acquisition, in the following terms:- "that in case the aforesaid land/property is released or de-notified from acquisition by the Govt. /delhi Administration/d. D. A. or acquisition proceedings are quashed by Courts/high Courts/ Supreme Court for any reason whatsoever in the even the Assignor shall not claim any interest, rights, or title of any kind whatsoever revertionary and/or otherwise in the said property/land and the Assignee shall be entitled for all the benefits in respect of the said compensation of aforesaid lands/property, revertionary and/or other and Assignee can mutate the same in his name in revenue records also on the basis of this Assignment Deed. "since the stipulated contingency has not occurred, Anil Kapoor had only a limited interest of receiving compensation for the acquired land, and he, in turn, could transfer to petitioner No. 2 no better title. ( 8 ) IN the re-numbered paragraph 4 and in paragraph 5 of the affidavit, it is again ingeniously pleaded to mislead the Court that through Anil Kapoor, the petitioners had purchased and got title to the land. Furthermore, various illusory stipulations made in the General Power of Attorney mislead one to believe that there were existing structures and arrangements were envisaged to be made for getting the property assessed for purposes of house-tax and payment of lease money, property tax etc. , whereas on the petitioners own showing they had got only a vacant piece of land. In any event, the purported agreement to sell is worthless. The said agreement to sell would not give to the petitioners any enforceable right or claim to possession of the land. The alleged Will of Anil Kapoor is also of no consequence until it comes into operation and is probated. ( 9 ) THE above discussed circumstances are merely illustrative (not exhaustive) and are more than sufficient to show that the petitioners title is far from clear and the same is rather doubtful. Mere assertion, in paragraph 5 of the said affidavit, of the understanding of the petitioners about the cumulative effect of the documents Annexure C (Collectively) drawn up in their own favour is of no avail. Reference to the DDA recognising similar transactions is equally misleading. Transactions involving land or property allotted by DDA are governed by terms and conditions expressly stipulated under a contract between the concerned parties. The DDA has nothing to do with the property in question. Reliance upon DDA contracts in the context of the present case is wholly misconceived. ( 10 ) FURTHERMORE, the case set up by the petitioners in paragraph 7 of the affidavit with regard to construction of the property of which possession is sought through a writ of the Court is far from satisfactory. Admittedly, construction of the property of the petitioner in Sainik Farms is wholly devoid of authority of law. ( 11 ) THE averment with regard to expected regularisation of the colony pending consideration of the Government is futile. Admittedly, construction of the property of the petitioner in Sainik Farms is wholly devoid of authority of law. ( 11 ) THE averment with regard to expected regularisation of the colony pending consideration of the Government is futile. In response to a pointed question, learned counsel for the petitioners candidly admitted that the land in question has not been de-notified or withdrawn from acquisition. The Court would not recognise any construction without authority of law. ( 12 ) THE plea that the colony called Sainik Farms has been provided with electricity is also a bluff. Here again, when pressed, learned counsel for the petitioners disclosed that the petitioners do not have any sanctioned connection for supply of electricity. He urged that the petitioners were using their own generators for consumption of electricity. As against this, the facts stated in the writ petition itself clearly show that the petitioners are facing prosecution for alleged theft of electricity in two cases, being FIR No. 77/93 and FIR No. 324/93, which are still pending trial. ( 13 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, it appears to us that the petitioners have no equity in their favour and they have not come to Court with clean hands. They are seeking a writ for recovery of possession of property in question even without establishing their right, title or interest therein in accordance with law. We are not inclined to go into disputed questions of title in the present proceedings, much less in this case, where the petitioners are claiming possession of property unlawfully built in an unauthorised colony on acquired land. ( 14 ) THE writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.