( 1 ) CW No. 39/7 and CMNo. 6937 of 96 The petitioner through the present writ petition want a direction from this Court to restrain the respondents from taking forcible possession of the land and structures raised thereon, belonging to the petitionssituated at K Block. Mahipalpur Extension, Part I, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the property in dispute ). ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has contended that. the petitioners are the lawful occupants of the property in dispute since long. They have been provided with all the essential facilities by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi such as water connections, electric connections and telephone connections They have been issued ration cards. The above said colony where the petitioners are residing is proposed to be legalised and regularised. The respondents are threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the abovesaid properties. Hence the petitioners were compelled and impelled to bring forward the present suit. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents have urged to the contrary. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and have very carefully examined their rival contentions and have given my anxious thought thereto. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has conceded during the course of arguments that the property in dispute has been acquired vide an award dated September 2, 1986. The only- contention of the petitioners is that the same has been illegally acquired. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioners have not preferred an appeal against the award, alluded to above. Thus the said point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be gone into and adjudicated upon in the present proceedings. ( 7 ) THE petitioners have then placed on record a list of unauthorised colonies which are proposed to be regularised falling in the Development Area, Najafgarh Zone, South Zone. The present colony where the petitioners are putting up has been shown at Sr. No. 225. Thus admittedly the colony where the petitioners are resting is an unauthorised one. The mere fact that the petitioners have been provided with essential facilities and amenities in order to make the life worth-living such as electricity, water connections and telephone connections would not ipso fact to turn the said colony. particularly the properties which are in occupied of the petitioners, into. a legal and authorised one. The mere fact that the petitioners have been provided with essential facilities and amenities in order to make the life worth-living such as electricity, water connections and telephone connections would not ipso fact to turn the said colony. particularly the properties which are in occupied of the petitioners, into. a legal and authorised one. ( 8 ) THERE is another aspect of the matter. Learned, counsel for the respondents have led me through the photo copies of the ration cards pertaining to Brij Lal. Shy am Singh. Pancha Ram. Sanwar Mal and Tulsi Ram. Admittedly none of them is a petitioner in the present proceedings. Hence the said ration cards are of no avail to the petitioners. ( 9 ) THE petitioners have then placed on records certain identity cards issued by the Election Commissioner of India in order to how that the petitioners have been residing over there since long Surprisingly enough the said identity cards pertain to different persons other than the petitioner. They are in the names of Kanahiya Lal, Parvati Devi, Lalkeshwar Paswan and Sheela Devi. Thus the said documents are absolutely of no help to the petitioners. In fact. the petitioners should have not filed the same. This goes to show that the petitioners have not approached thus Court with clean hands. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has then led me through a receipt in order to show that the petitioners are pay ing the development charges which goes to show a long way that the present colony is going to be regularised. I have very carefully examined the said photo copies of the receipt. It is in the name of one Sanwar Mal. Hence it does not come to the rescue of the petitioners. ( 11 ) IT has next been argued on behalf of the petitioners that since the petitioners have been residing in the abovesaid houses for the last about 30 of or 32 years, hence a restraint order be issued in their favour and against the respondents from dis-possessing then from the same. is also of no avail to the petitioners in as much as there is a letter dated July 28, 1994 which goes to show that the abovesaid colony case into existence in the year 1988. is also of no avail to the petitioners in as much as there is a letter dated July 28, 1994 which goes to show that the abovesaid colony case into existence in the year 1988. Hence it was not within the consideration zone of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking for the purpose of grant of electric connection. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has then contended that the petitioners have also been running a Gaushala since long. I have looked into the photo copy of the registration certificate placed on record. It goes to show that Jagdam Gaushala w as registered under the Societies Registration Act on October 20,1992. ( 13 ) THE petitioners have next placed reliance on a stay order granted by the Hon ble Supreme Court in certain special leave petitioners i. e. Faquir Chand v. Union of India and Ors. , The said special leave petition was preferred in CW. P No. 1189/. 82 which was one of the writ petitions which were disposed of and dismissed by this Court along with a case entitled Roshanara Begum Vs. Union of India, reported in 1996 I AD (DELHI) 6. Therefore, the said order does not come to the rescue of the petitioners and is of no avail to them. ( 14 ) THERE is another aspect of the matter. The petitioners, if they want to place reliance on the said interim order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, in that eventual at, the present petition, even otherwise, is not maintainable in view of the judgment and order passed in Roshanara Begum s case (supra ). ( 15 ) THERE is another side of the picture. Admittedly, in the instant case the land has been acquired. Once a land has been acquired and an award has been made it vests in the Government (vide Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act ). Thus the petitioners, once it is found that their has been acquired. have got absolutely no right and title to the said land. They cannot seek an injuction from this Court with regard to the said land. I am tempted here to cite a few lines from a judgment as reported in Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and Ors. Vs. The Puna Municipal Corporation and Anr, IT 1995 (2) S. C. 504. . . . . . . . They cannot seek an injuction from this Court with regard to the said land. I am tempted here to cite a few lines from a judgment as reported in Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and Ors. Vs. The Puna Municipal Corporation and Anr, IT 1995 (2) S. C. 504. . . . . . . . It is settled law that no injuction could be granted against the true owner at the instance of persons in unlawful possession. It is true that the appellants placed reliance in their plaint on resolutions passed by the Municipality, on 11. 11. 72 and 29. 11. 72. A rowing of those resolutions would prima facie show that possession would be taken where the acquisition proceedings have become final and land acquisition proceedings would not be pursued where award has not been made as on the date of the resolution. In this case, since the acquisition proceedings have become final. then necessarily possession has to be taken by the Corporation for the public purpose for which the acquisition was made. " ( 16 ) IN view of the above I do not see any force in the present writ petition. It is hereby dismissed in limine.