JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. The five petitioners before us have preferred this petition to assail the Notification dated 03.05.2023, issued by the Indian Railways, informing the concerned people, who are in unauthorized occupation of land belonging to the Railways, that within ten days of issuance of the notice, i.e., within ten days from 03.05.2023, they should remove themselves from the land belonging to the Railways, failing which the Railways shall get their lands vacated by use of force, and recover the amounts spent in that regard from the encroachers. 2. The petitioners claim that they, and many others, are occupying the land which is known as ‘Nagina Basti’. They claim that in that basti, there are primary schools, and other facilities, provided by the State. They also have Voter ID cards, and other documents, to establish their identity. Pertinently, none of the petitioners claim title to the land, which they are occupying. It is not their case that they have any ownership, or other right in the land, such as, that of a lessee, or licensee. They do not claim any right in the land, even by prescription. 3. Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who appears on advance notice, has tendered in Court the instructions received by him from North Eastern Railways vide letter dated 16.05.2023, issued by Sri Ranjeet Singh Dhakkarwal, Divisional Engineer-I, to state that a joint survey was conducted on 30.08.2009, in the area of Nagina Colony, Lal Kuan, by the Railway officials and State Government officials. It is found that, at that point of time, there were 84 encroachments, mostly consisting of kaccha houses, which were illegally situated on railway land. Notices were issued on 18.04.2018, by the beating of drums to the occupants; again on 25.06.2021, by publication in the newspaper, and; by issuing individual notices on 30.06.2022. Finally, on 03.05.2023, a general notice to vacate the unauthorized occupation was issued, which has now been assailed in this petition. It is further stated that the land situated in the Nagina Colony is railway land, which is highly required for expansion of railway line, and the said colony is coming in the way of the expansion programme. It is necessary to get illegal occupants vacated from the Nagina Colony to give way to the Railway project. 4. The petitioners are seeking a discretionary relief from this Court. It is necessary to get illegal occupants vacated from the Nagina Colony to give way to the Railway project. 4. The petitioners are seeking a discretionary relief from this Court. It is well settled that any person, who approaches this Court seeking a discretionary relief, should come with clean hands. The petitioners, pertinently, have no title to the land which they have occupied, and are illegally occupying the government property. This Court will not lend its hands, and come to protection of such persons, who are encroaching and illegally occupying the government property. We cannot pass orders to protect or advance an illegality. The petitioners are rank trespassers over government land. Pertinently, they have not even claimed any rights in the land by adverse possession. That could have been their best case. Even in respect of such a claim, the Supreme Court has observed in Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan, (2009) 16 SCC 517 , as follows: “32. …The law ought not to benefit a person who in a clandestine manner takes possession of the property of the owner in contravention of law. This in substance would mean that the law gives seal of approval to the illegal action or activities of a rank trespasser or who had wrongfully taken possession of the property of the true owner. 33. We fail to comprehend why the law should place a premium on dishonesty by legitimising possession of a rank trespasser and compelling the owner to lose his possession only because of his inaction in taking back the possession within limitation…” 5. In Ravinder Kaur Grewal Vs Manjit Kaur, (2019) 8 SCC 729 , the Supreme Court relied upon Jagpal Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396 , and held that “at this stage, the decision of this Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) is required to be referred to. In the said decision, this Court had come down heavily upon such trespassers who have illegally encroached upon on the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat land by using muscle powers/money powers and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat”. In the said decision, this Court has observed that “such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned”. In the said decision, this Court had come down heavily upon such trespassers who have illegally encroached upon on the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat land by using muscle powers/money powers and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat”. In the said decision, this Court has observed that “such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned”. It is further observed that “even if there is a construction the same is required to be removed and the possession of the land must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat”. It is further observed that “regularising such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of the villagers of the village”. Thereafter, this Court has issued the following directions : “23. Before parting with this case, we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show-cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularising the illegal possession. Regularisation should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some government notification to landless labourers or members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.” 6. In our view, the plea of adverse possession, in any event, could not have been raised by the petitioners, as they are occupying government land, i.e. public land, wherein each member of the public has an interest, including the petitioners herein, that the same be put to public use, and not to personal use by any individual. They possibly cannot encroach on land wherein all members of the public, including the petitioners themselves, have such an interest. They possibly cannot encroach on land wherein all members of the public, including the petitioners themselves, have such an interest. They cannot claim hostile possession over such land- hostile to themselves, and to the public at large. No person of the public can misappropriate the land for his personal use to the exclusion of others, even if he- as a member of the public, has a right to ensure its use for a public purpose. 7. The law of adverse possession, in our view, should be understood as attracted only in situations where the encroachment is made on private land, i.e. on land belonging to identified persons- be it natural, or artificial. 8. We say this, because only in such cases, the true owner would have personal interest to pursue an action for eviction of the trespassers, who is in hostile occupation. On the other hand, when the encroached land is a public land, mere inaction on the part of the public functionaries- who have the responsibility of taking action for removal of encroachment, cannot take away the right of public at large over public property. Public functionaries discharge a public trust in their official functioning. They act as trustees qua public assets, in respect whereof they have authority to protect. The breach of trust by the trustee, cannot be the detriment of the beneficiary. However, since the petitioners have not even pleaded that they are in adverse possession, we need say no more. 9. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. Stay application (IA No. 01 of 2023) also stands disposed of.