S. K. MAHAJAN ( 1 ) ( 2 ). Petitioners claim that they are the jhuggi dwellers residing on plot No. 61-A, Dilshad garden, for the last over 15-30 years and are holding valid ration cards, voter identity card, electricity connection etc. It is submitted that this piece of land is not touching the main road and the petitioners are not encroaching upon any road or pavement and are earning their livlihood from the said plot of land. It is further submitted that this land was acquired by the respondent and an award dated 17/11/1972 was made by the Collector. It is submitted that the respondents have tried to acquire the land by way of colourable exercise of power and there was no need of acquiring land for public purpose. The petitioners have, therefore, sought a direction to quash the award made by the Collector and for an order restraining the respondents from evicting the petitioners from the land in question. ( 3 ). Petitioners are admittedly neither owners nor the tenants on the land which has been acquired vide the award No. 61/72-73. Petitioners are admittedly tresspassers. The petitioners, in my opinion, therefore, have no locus standi to challenge the acquisition of the land. The land after acquisition was placed at the disposal of the Delhi Development Authority and was further transferred for construction of houses in the Dilshad Garden Housing Scheme. The petitioners who had unauthorisedly occupied a portion of the land were evicted therefrom in a demolition drive carried out on 12/07/1999. The land was thereafter fenced by the Delhi development Authority, however, the petitioners have again encroached upon the said land and have filed the present petition to perpetuate their illegal possession over the land. Despite opportunities, petitioners have not filed rejoinder to the counter-affidavit of the Delhi development Authority and I have, therefore, no reasons to disbelieve the averments made therein. ( 4 ). In my view, since the petitioners have unauthorisedly occupied the land after they were evicted therefrom in July, 1999, they cannot claim any right therein. As already observed above, petitioners being trespassers, have no right to challenge the acquisition of land by the respondents. The land, after acquisition, has vested in the Government and they have every right to take possession of the land by evicting every person who may be in unauthorised possession of the land. As already observed above, petitioners being trespassers, have no right to challenge the acquisition of land by the respondents. The land, after acquisition, has vested in the Government and they have every right to take possession of the land by evicting every person who may be in unauthorised possession of the land. The petition, in my view, is totally misconceived and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.