Dalveer Bhandari ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this application against the order dated 16th March, 1995 by which the revision petition Filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this application arc recapitulated as under: The case of the petitioner is that a piece of land measuring 85 sq. yds. forming part of Khasra no. 624, 278 situated in village Hauz Khas, New Delhi has in his possession for a long time. ( 2 ) IT is submitted that the MCD at the behest of Bhim Singh and Mangat Singh are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question, and the petitioner was compelled to file a suit for permanent injunction against the MCD. On 27. 11. 93, the learned Sub Judge directed the parties to maintain status quo. Again on 17. 2. 1994, the learned Sub Judge passed the following order. "pt. counsel for parties Defendant seeks adjournment Plaintiff has pressed for stay. As per the plaint, the plaintiff has already obtained status quo order with respect to his neighbour Bhim Singh and Mangat Singh with respect to the open plot in question. Now the plaintiff wants a status quo against the M. C. D. Admittedly there is no construction at the spot. In my view, even if no status quo order is passed then there is no imminent threat of demolition of any structure. Accordingly, an opportunity is given to the MCD to file WS/reply and for producing the concerned official in this behalf. In view of this, case to come up for the same on 28. 2. 94. Sd/sj. Delhi 17-2-94" ( 3 ) THE petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order has preferred this Revision Petition before this Court. This court issued notice in the Civil Revision Petition on 18. 2. 1994 and directed that if the petitioner is in possession, he will not be dispossessed. The matter again came up before the court on 16. 3. 1995 and the following order was passed: Learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record a certified copy of the order dated 27th February, 1995 by which the main suit has been dismissed. Therefore, nothing survives in this revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Interim order stands vacated ( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner moved the review application no-22/95 during the pendency of this matter. Therefore, nothing survives in this revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Interim order stands vacated ( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner moved the review application no-22/95 during the pendency of this matter. This court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the MCD, passed the following order on 18. 9. 1995: Mr. Shashikant Mehrotra, Additional Deputy Commission (South Zone) is present in court in person in pursuance of the direction o;f this Court dated 11th September, 1995. Mrs. Madhu Tewatia, learned counsel appearing for the MCD submits that the possession of land in question has always been with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. (Even on 18th February, 1994, when the order was passed by this Court ). Relevant portion of the order is set down as under: "in the meanwhile, if the petitioner is in possession, he will not be dispossessed. "since the MCD was in possession of the land in question on that day, thereafter, this order did not affect the possession of MCD in any manner. The MCD is directed to file an affidavit in support of its contention within one week from today with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who may file reply, if any within a week thereafter. "list this matter for arguments on 9th October, 1995 at 2. 00 P. M. The Additional Deputy Commissioner need not to remain present in Court on that day. " ( 5 ) IN pursuance of the directions of this court, a reply affidavit on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was filed. It is categorically stated on behalf of the MCD that the land in question belongs to the MCD. The said land is a public street vested in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The telephone lines, water main lines, sewage lines, electricity lines are passing under the same. It is shown as such in the lay-out plan of the area in question. It is slated in the reply to para 5 that the land in question belongs to and vests in the MCD, and is a park or road as per the lay-out plan of village Hauz Khas and that the roads are being maintained by the MCD. The land in question is in actual physical possession of the MCD. It is slated in the reply to para 5 that the land in question belongs to and vests in the MCD, and is a park or road as per the lay-out plan of village Hauz Khas and that the roads are being maintained by the MCD. The land in question is in actual physical possession of the MCD. It is submitted that the entire area of village Hauz Khas after being developed was handed over to the MCD for maintenance, and providing civic amenities. The petitioner is neither the owner nor in possession of the land and the land in question is the property of the MCD in the lay-out plan and is shown as a park. ( 6 ) IT is further stated that as of date, no permanent structure exists on the said land/plot and whenever any article/cattle etc. were placed by the petitioner, necessary action was taken by the MCD under Section323 of the D. M. C. Act. It is also mentioned that when the petitioner tried to encroach upon this street, the petitioner was removed from there and arrested by the police officials of the Police Station Hauz Khas, New Delhi, on 16. 11. 93. The petitioner was challaned under Section 100 of Delhi Police Act. In the affidavit, it is mentioned that after having been so removed by the police the petitioner tried to encroach upon the land in question which is part of the street as per the lay out plan the said articles were removed and taken away by MCD on 23rd and 25th November, 1993. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the petitioner is a rank trespasser and has got no right, title and interest in the suit property and thus no relief ought to be granted to the petitioner by this court because the petitioner has no case either in law or equity. ( 7 ) THIS application (C. M. 2511/95) has been Filed by one Mr. Bhim Singh under Order 1 rule 10 for impleadment. It is mentioned in the application also that possession of the properly in question is with the MCD. He has annexed certain photographs. These photographs show that barbed wire has been placed around the land in question and a big board indicating that the land belongs to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, has also been in the said piece of land. He has annexed certain photographs. These photographs show that barbed wire has been placed around the land in question and a big board indicating that the land belongs to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, has also been in the said piece of land. ( 8 ) I heard learned counsel for the partics and carefully perused the relevant documents on record. The petitioner has miserably failed to convince the court how he ever came in possession of that land. He has failed to establish that he or his ancestors ever purchased or inherited or received in gift this piece of land. The petitioner admittedly never had any right or title of the land in question. The petitioner even could not file any document to support his claim of possession on the land in question. On the basis of the detailed affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the MCD, the conclusion becomes irresistible that land in question belongs to the MCD, The MCD is the owner of the land and the same is in physical possession of the M. C. D. The petitioner somehow wants to grab the land in question. The petitioner has absolutely no case either in law or in equity. This litigation perhaps has been initiated so that the petitioner in the garb of litigation may gel or lake possession of the land in question. In these circumstances when there is no merit in the revision petition itself, no useful purpose would be served in issuing notice in the review application. The review application filed by the petitioner being totally devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed and consequently other CMs are also dismissed.