JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL.49228/2023 & CM APPL.49229/2023 in C.R.P.224/2019 2. These are two applications which have been filed by occupants of the property bearing No.1068, Ward number 1, Khasra No.1151/3. The details of the Applicants is as under: S. No. Flat Owner and their Family 1 Fazluddin Khan Tufiel Ahmed Khan S/o Fazluddin Khan Naseema D/p Tufiel Ahmad Khan Mohsin S/o Tarannum D/o 2 MM Kunju Mrs. Ramla Bivi (wife) Harish (son) Anees (son) 3 Mehar Siddiqui Tauseef Siddiqui (husband) Gul Rukh (daughter) Shahrukh Ali (son) 4 Shaji Reeja Shaji (wife) Hadi Pathan (son) Hafi Pathan (son) 5 Muzaffar Nayeem Murtaza Dr. Kaenat Zahra Irtaza Shiraz (son) Umar Shiraji (son) Alisha Zahara (daughter) 6 Abdul Bari Farhat Parween (wife) Faizul Rahman (son) Albina Rahman (daughter) 7 Tahira Begum Mohd Faizan Shafeeq (brother) Hina Faizan (wife of Mohd. Faizan) Anabiya Rehman (daughter of Mohd Faizan) Hurain Rehman (daughter) 3. The prayer in these applications is that the Applicants be impleaded in the present petition and they be given 6 months' time to vacate the said property. 4. Mr. Gautam Narayan, ld. Counsel appearing for the Applicants submits that he is conscious of the earlier orders which have been passed by this Court in CRP 224/2019 and all the related matters. He submits that the present Applicants are not related to the Petitioners in the said petition in any manner, but had purchased the flats, where they are residing with their families, through one M/s K.V. Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Reliance is placed upon various sale deeds executed in 2009 by all these applicants after paying consideration to M/s K.V. Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 5. The ld. Counsel submits that the said K.V. Promoters had claimed to have derived title from the family of Ms. Afroznisha, Mehvish Adil, Mohd. Adil, etc. In 2022, notices were posted on the residence of the Applicants that they are unauthorised occupants and that they have to vacate the premises within a period of seven days. The applicants also made representations to the Delhi Waqf Board, which were not considered favorably. Further, notices were received by the applicants for eviction by 31st August, 2023. 6. Mr. Narayan, ld. The applicants also made representations to the Delhi Waqf Board, which were not considered favorably. Further, notices were received by the applicants for eviction by 31st August, 2023. 6. Mr. Narayan, ld. Counsel points that the notice dated 23rd August, 2022 issued by the Executive Magistrate, GNCTD was challenged in writ petition being W.P.(C) 13219/2022 titled Tufiel Ahmed Khan & Ors. v. GNCTD & Ors, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 29th August, 2023. Upon the dismissal of the said writ petition, the present applications have been moved by the applicants in terms of the liberty granted by the said Court. 7. He submits that in terms of Sections 52 and 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995 proper proceedings have to be initiated against the occupants. Only thereafter, the Applicants can be removed from the premises in their occupation. In the absence of any such notices, the action taken by the Waqf Board in coordination with the SDM would be without any sanctity of law. 8. He submits that the Applicants' stand now is that the Applicants have given up their claim of title in the premises which is under their occupation. They have made representations to the Delhi Waqf Board (DWB) to convert their possession into tenancies so that they can pay proper license fee or rent as may be determined by the DWB. Various representations were made to the DWB -the last one being dated 4th September, 2023. 9. On behalf of the Respondent-DWB, Ms. Wani, ld. Counsel has vehemently urged before this Court that the DWB is facing repeated obstacles and impediments in getting illegal occupants and encroachers removed from its land. She submits that the initial judgment of this Court, in respect of this property, was passed in Mehvish Adil v. Delhi Waqf Board [C.R.P. 223/2019, date of judgment 15th December, 2021], as also in W.P.(C) 6915/2023 titled Shehdab Anjum v Government of NCT of Delhi, vide order dated 22nd May, 2023. The order passed by this Court in the writ petition was upheld by the ld. Division Bench in LPA 519/2023 vide order dated 28th June, 2023. In the LPA, the ld. Division Bench imposed costs of Rs.1 lakh on the Appellants. This Division Bench order was also carried to the Supreme Court vide SLP No.15750/2023, which was also dismissed by order dated 31st July, 2023, with further enhancement of costs to Rs.2 lakhs. 10. Division Bench in LPA 519/2023 vide order dated 28th June, 2023. In the LPA, the ld. Division Bench imposed costs of Rs.1 lakh on the Appellants. This Division Bench order was also carried to the Supreme Court vide SLP No.15750/2023, which was also dismissed by order dated 31st July, 2023, with further enhancement of costs to Rs.2 lakhs. 10. Ms. Wani, ld. Counsel submits that these Applicants have all along been aware of the proceedings which the DWB has taken against Afroznisha and the connected family members. They have, however, chosen to stay away from the proceedings and sit on the fence. Only when the final notices for eviction action has been issued they have chosen to approach the Court. 11. Heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The present litigation is another example of how there are so many challenges in removing the illegal occupants and encroachers from government land including lands belonging to the DWB and other similar authorities. The struggle of the DWB has continued since the proceedings were initiated in 2018 against Mehvish Adil, Mohd. Adil and Afroznisha. The proceedings were initially initiated by the DWB in terms of the Waqf Act, 1995 under Sections 52 and 54. The Waqf Tribunal had passed orders dated 4th October, 2019, which was challenged before this Court in C.R.Ps 223/2019, 224/2019 and 225/2019 titled Mehvish Adil v. Delhi Waqf Board. 12. In the said petitions, the rent agreements executed by the said Petitioners with the DWB dated 16th October, 2008 and 5th November, 2008 were considered and the revision petitions were disposed of vide order dated 15th December, 2021 wherein the Court clearly held that the Petitioners did not have any right in law over the property in question. After consideration of the entire matter, the Court observed as under: "35. Thus, it is the settled legal position that `due process' need not mean only an active process initiated by the owner of the property. It can even mean rejection of relief in a proceeding initiated by the occupants/encroachers or persons in possession. 36. Moreover, in the present petitions, the Petitioners have admitted the ownership of the Waqf Board over the suit property by entering into rent agreements. 37. The recitals in the rent agreements dated 16th October, 2008 and 5th November, 2008 leave no scope for any ambiguity. 36. Moreover, in the present petitions, the Petitioners have admitted the ownership of the Waqf Board over the suit property by entering into rent agreements. 37. The recitals in the rent agreements dated 16th October, 2008 and 5th November, 2008 leave no scope for any ambiguity. These rent deeds and material facts have been deliberately and intentionally concealed from the Waqf Tribunal when the plaints were filed. The rent deeds are very clear that the tenancy was only for a period of 11 months. The Petitioners are encroachers/trespassers and in any case, unauthorized occupants of public land belonging to the Waqf and the said issue has been considered in detail by the Waqf Tribunal. The submission made on behalf of the Petitioners to the effect that `due process' has not been followed is thus, liable to be rejected. 38. In any event, the Petitioners having entered into rent agreements are estopped from challenging the title of the Waqf Board as stipulated under Section 116 of the Evidence Act. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the dismissal of the applications for injunction vide orders of the Waqf Tribunal dated 4th October, 2019, is in accordance with law. 39. Accordingly, the applications for injunction having been rejected, the Waqf Board is free to take proceedings in accordance with law to take possession of the suit property. 40. Further, in view of the conduct of the Petitioners of concealing relevant facts before the Tribunal and initially before this Court, each of the Petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/as costs with the Waqf Board within a period of six weeks from today. 41. The present petitions are accordingly dismissed. All pending applications are also disposed of." 13. As per the above order, the DWB was given liberty to take proceedings in accordance with law to obtain possession of the property. Thereafter, a review petition was preferred by Mohd. Rizwan S/o Late Mohd. Razi. The said review petition was dismissed on 22nd February, 2022 by another detailed order. In the said review application, the clear finding of the Court was that the said review applicant had claimed rights through the family of Mrs. Afroznisha. The review application was also dismissed on the ground that the review applicants have also made misrepresentations and fraudulent statements before the Court. Moreover, costs of Rs.50,000/-were imposed by the Court on the Review Petitioner. Afroznisha. The review application was also dismissed on the ground that the review applicants have also made misrepresentations and fraudulent statements before the Court. Moreover, costs of Rs.50,000/-were imposed by the Court on the Review Petitioner. 14. The matter did not end here. The Petitioners thereafter continued to remain in possession of the property. Another writ petition being W.P.(C) 13219/2022 titled Taufiel Ahmed Khan v. GNCTD was filed. In the said writ petition, initially notice was issued. Thereafter, the Court vide order dated disposed of the petition vide order dated 29th August, 2023 in the following terms: "9. In view of the aforesaid, as far as petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 are concerned, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that no coercive steps will be taken against petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 and 8, subject to their filing an undertaking before this Court by 02.09.2023 to the effect that they will hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the flats in their possession to the representative of the Delhi Waqf Board on 24.09.2023 at 11:00 am, unless further time has been granted by the Court in applications to be filed by them in C.R.P. 224/2019 . 10. As far as petitioner Nos. 7, 9 and 10 are concerned, the petition was originally filed by Mr. Shoaib Khan, Advocate who is not present today. Mr. Narayan is instructed by Mr. Rahul Ranjan, who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 alone. The matter was also passed over once to enable Mr. Ranjan to contact petitioner Nos. 7, 9 and 10. However, they are not represented even on the second call. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in default as against petitioner Nos. 7, 9 and 10. 11. This order will not affect the rights and remedies of any other party, including the petitioners in C.R.P. 223/2019, 224/2019 and 225/2019 or W.P.(C) 6915/2023, whose cases have already been adjudicated in appropriate proceedings. " 15. As can be seen from the above, the Court had granted time to the Applicants herein to handover the peaceful and vacant physical possession of the premises to the DWB by 24th September, 2023, 11:00 am unless further time is granted by this Court in CRP 224/2019. " 15. As can be seen from the above, the Court had granted time to the Applicants herein to handover the peaceful and vacant physical possession of the premises to the DWB by 24th September, 2023, 11:00 am unless further time is granted by this Court in CRP 224/2019. The said time is expiring day after tomorrow and the present applications have now been filed at the last moment. 16. Along with the present application, the applicants have also filed undertakings in compliance of order dated 29th August, 2023 passed in W.P.(C) 13219/2022 (supra) a sample of which is extracted below: "1. That I am Petitioner No.1 in WP (C) No.13219 of 2022. 2. That the aforesaid flat, Flat No.2 in Property No.1068, which is located in Khasra No.1151/3, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030 was purchased by me vide registered sale deed dated 29.07.2009 registered before Sub Registrar V from M/s KV Promoters Private Ltd. for lawful consideration. 3. That I alongwith my family members have been residing in the property since 2009. 4. That it appears from the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in CRP Nos.223/2019, 224/2019 and 225/2019 and RP No.35/2022 that the land falling in Khasra no.1151/3, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030 is purportedly land belonging to the Delhi Waqf Board and has unauthorizedly been sold to M/s KV Promoters by Mohd. Rizwan. That, therefore, I am the victim of fraud perpetrated by persons claiming to have title over the said property. 5. That, in this background I have submitted a representation dated 14.06.23 to the Waqf Board to execute a lease deed in my favour treating me as tenant of the said property. 6. That I have, however, not received any response to the aforesaid representation till date . 7. That in compliance with order dated 29.08.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP (C) No.13219 of 2019, I hereby undertake to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the flat to representatives of Delhi Waqf Board on 24.09.2023 if by then I am not granted an extension of time for vacating the said flat by this Hon'ble Court in CRP Nos 223/2019, 224/2019 and 225/2019. " 17. Mohd. Adil is also stated to have filed another writ petition, being W.P.(C) 12401/2023 titled Mohd. Adil v. GNCTD, which was disposed of by another ld. " 17. Mohd. Adil is also stated to have filed another writ petition, being W.P.(C) 12401/2023 titled Mohd. Adil v. GNCTD, which was disposed of by another ld. Single judge of this Court on 20th September, 2023 with costs of Rs.25,000/-in the following terms: "10. The petitioner herein has accepted the aforesaid judgment in his revision petition. The attempt in this writ petition is to agitate the very same issues again. Such an attempt is impermissible in law. 11. Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are founded in equity and good conscience, as recently reiterated by the Supreme Court in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another v. Bikartan Das and Others. I do not consider the conduct of the petitioner in the present case such as to entitle him to relief thereunder. 12. The writ petition, alongwith pending applications, is therefore dismissed, with costs of .25,000/-, to be paid by the petitioner to the DWB within two weeks from today." 18. The above chronology of events would reveal that the unauthorized occupants, all of whom trace their rights to Afroznisha, Mohd. Adil and Mehvish Adil are repeatedly filing various proceedings to somehow retain possession and occupation of the property in question. 19. The Applicants herein ought to have had knowledge of these orders contemporaneously and in any event, have been given notice as of August, 2022 to vacate their premises in their occupation. The struggle of the DWB continues and its stand today, as expressed by Shaista Siddiqui, Legal Manager, DWB along with the Ms. Wani, is that sufficient police protection is not being afforded and the SDM is also not taking action to ensure that the orders passed by various Courts are given effect. It is thus seen that the earliest order, which was passed by this Court is of 15th December, 2021 and since then the occupants of these properties have continued to remain in possession without paying any occupation charges to any person. 20. The photographs, which have been placed on record by the applicants would show that proper buildings have been constructed on land which was rented land from DWB and multiple subsequent sales and purchases have been effected. The sketch of the land is set out below for ready reference: 21. It been submitted by Mr. Narayan, ld. 20. The photographs, which have been placed on record by the applicants would show that proper buildings have been constructed on land which was rented land from DWB and multiple subsequent sales and purchases have been effected. The sketch of the land is set out below for ready reference: 21. It been submitted by Mr. Narayan, ld. Counsel for the Applicant that the portion reflected in pink in the above chart is where the Applicants reside. However, even apart from the pink coloured portion, none of other land also seems to have been taken possession till date. 22. The view that Afroznisha, Mohd. Adil and Mehvish Adil are illegal occupants was taken by this Court vide order dated 15th December, 2021. Thereafter, a writ petition being W.P. (C) 6915/2023 titled Shadab Anjum v. GNCTD was filed by Petitioners who were claiming to be purchasers of the subject property and were claiming title through Afroznisha. The Court vide order dated 22nd May, 2023 dismissed the writ petition and directed DWB to take possession of the property. Undertaking of the Petitioner to vacate the subject property within a month was also recorded. The said order reads as under: "10. In the present case, the title to the subject property purchased by the Petitioners is stated by them to be traced back to Ms. Afroz Nisha, Mehvish Adil and Mohd. Rizwan . As already clarified in the order dated 15th December 2021 rent agreements had been executed between Ms. Afroz Nisha, wife of Mohd. Razi, and the Waqf Board as also between the Delhi Waqf Board and Mohd. Adil and one Mohd. Sufiyan stated to be another son of Mohd. Razi. By entering into these rent agreements the ownership of the Waqf Board over the subject property has already been admitted. Clearly, therefore, the Petitioners are illegal occupants. The remedies of the Petitioners, if any, against the sellers is not the concern of this Court as the property is undoubtedly a waqf property. 11. Repeated individuals are seeking rights in the subject property and are filing multiple proceedings. It is clear to the Court that the occupants of this property are in somehow or the other not permitting the Waqf Board to take possession of the property. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 12. After some hearing, ld. It is clear to the Court that the occupants of this property are in somehow or the other not permitting the Waqf Board to take possession of the property. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 12. After some hearing, ld. Counsel for the Petitioners, under instructions, submits that Petitioners would vacate the subject property within one month. Undertaking given by the Petitioners is recorded and accepted. 13. It is directed that the Petitioners shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the subject property by 25th June, 2023, failing which the Waqf Board shall take all necessary steps to demolish and remove the illegal/unauthorised occupants from the property. 14 The Waqf Board is also free to commence proceedings for the recovery of damages against all the occupants of the subject property, if the vacant and peaceful possession of the same is not handed over by 25th June 2023. " 23. An appeal against the order of this Court being LPA No. 519/2023 titled Shadab Anjum v. GNCTD was preferred before the ld. Division Bench which dismissed the said appeal with costs. Relevant portion of the order dated 28th June, 2023 passed by the ld. Division Bench is set out below: "11. A reading of the impugned judgment reveals that, in fact, the appellants are encroachers and squatters over Waqf property, who, on one ground or the other, are holding onto the property for several years. Several rounds of litigation have transpired in the meanwhile. It is only after taking note of these facts that the learned Single Judge has recorded the undertaking, of learned counsel for the appellant, that they would vacate the subject property within one month. 12. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, the present appeal is a clear cut example of abuse of process. The appellants have squatted over the subject property over the years and, having given an undertaking before the learned Single Judge to vacate the property by 25 June 2023, preferred the present LPA on 22 June 2023. There is not a whisper of an averment in the entire LPA to the effect that the undertaking given before the learned Single Judge was not voluntary. There is not a whisper of an averment in the entire LPA to the effect that the undertaking given before the learned Single Judge was not voluntary. It is clear that the attempt of the appellants is, on one ground or the other, to go on abusing the legal process so that they can continue in possession of valuable Waqf property. 14. Mr. Shafiq submits that the property is situated in Mehrauli. It is a matter of common knowledge that property in Mehrauli commands very high prices as on date. In these circumstances, this Court, at the very outset, queried to Mr. Sinha as to whether his client is willing to abide by the undertaking given before the learned Single Judge and to vacate the property forming subject matter of these proceedings. Mr. Sinha's clients are in Court and, after taking instructions from them, he submits that he has been told to argue the matter. 15. We have heard learned Counsel at length. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, the present appeal, being a clear-cut example of abuse of process, cannot be entertained. 17. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs of 1 lakh, to be paid within a period of one week from today by way of a crossed cheque favouring the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Let the cost of 1 lakh be deposited with the learned Registrar General within a period of one week from today. 18. We direct that in the event the appellants do not vacate the aforenoted property on their own, the Waqf authorities would be at liberty to take coercive steps to recover the possession thereof. 19. The appeal stands dismissed in the above terms." 24. A Special Leave Petition being SLP(C) No. 15750/2023 titled Shadab Anjum v. GNCTD against the said order was preferred before the Supreme Court which dismissed the same vide order dated 28th June, 2023 in the following terms: "We have heard Mr. Soumya Chakraborty learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners. On 22.05.2023, the petitioners gave an undertaking before the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. The same was given by learned counsel for the petitioners under instructions of the petitioners. Soumya Chakraborty learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners. On 22.05.2023, the petitioners gave an undertaking before the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. The same was given by learned counsel for the petitioners under instructions of the petitioners. The undertaking was to vacate and handover vacant and peaceful possession of the subject property by 25.07.2023 failing which the Waqf Board was to take all steps to demolish and remove the illegal/unauthorised occupants from the property. The Waqf Board was also given the liberty to recover damages against all occupants of the subject property, if the vacant and peaceful possession of the same was not handed over by 25.07.2023. In terms of the aforesaid undertaking, the petition was dismissed. Despite an unconditional undertaking being given before the earned single Judge of the Delhi High Court, the petitioners filed LPA No.519/2023 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench on recording the aforesaid facts, has dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs.1,00,000/-to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Now, despite the aforesaid dismissal of the Letter Patents Appeal with costs, the petitioners have approached this Court assailing the order of the Division Bench. Upon hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioners, we find that the filing of this Special Leave Petition as well as the Letter Patents Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, are instances of the abuse of the process of law and Courts. In the circumstances, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only). The petitioners shall deposit the aforesaid amount before the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from today. On such deposit being made, the same shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 25. A perusal of the above orders would show that repeatedly heavy costs have been imposed on the unauthorized occupants and encroachers. However, the same is not having any effect whatsoever. 26. The Court may not doubt the fact that these Applicants who are before the Court today, may have presumed that the said KV Promoters enjoys proper title to the land and paid substantial amounts to purchase the rights in the flats way back in 2009. However, the same is not having any effect whatsoever. 26. The Court may not doubt the fact that these Applicants who are before the Court today, may have presumed that the said KV Promoters enjoys proper title to the land and paid substantial amounts to purchase the rights in the flats way back in 2009. However, unfortunately for them, the person, who allegedly entered into the said sale deeds and received consideration, himself did not have title to the said land. 27. The Applicants, who trace back their title Mohd. Rizwan, from whom rights were acquired by KV Promoters and thereafter passed on to the people residing in the flats, do not thus get any right, title or interest in the said property. Naturally, they have therefore filed undertakings and now pray for a considerate view to be taken as they reside with their families in the property in question. 28. Yesterday, the SDM of the concerned area was directed to appear before the Court, and today he has appeared virtually. He submits that due to various events that were taking place, including the recent international event, the eviction proceedings could not be initiated. However, he assures the Court that the orders would be given effect without any further delay. 29. The Court has gathered the impression in this litigation that while on the one hand, the Applicants and Petitioners do not want to vacate the properties under their occupation and possession, the concerned authorities including the SDM and the police are also not taking any steps to secure the property of the DWB. The DWB also had a responsibility to ensure that its property was duly secured and innocent citizens were not made to part with huge sums of money to unscrupulous individuals who claim title over DWB land. 30. In the facts of this case, the clear victim is the rule of law, inasmuch unscrupulous individuals have collected huge sums in lieu of title over the land which they clearly did not possess and have left the Applicants in the lurch. 31. Be that as it may, it is the duty of the Court to ensure removal of unauthorised occupants who have no rights over public land. The same is reflected from the following three decisions relied upon by Ms. Wani: Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab 2011 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 0429 "13. 31. Be that as it may, it is the duty of the Court to ensure removal of unauthorised occupants who have no rights over public land. The same is reflected from the following three decisions relied upon by Ms. Wani: Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab 2011 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 0429 "13. We find no merit in this appeal. The appellants herein were trespassers who illegally encroached on to the Gram Panchayat land by using muscle power/money power and in collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat. We are of the opinion that such kind of blatant illegalities must not be condoned . Even if the appellants have built houses on the land in question they must be ordered to remove their constructions, and possession of the land in question must be handed back to the Gram Panchayat. Regularizing such illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land which must be kept for the common use of villagers of the village . The letter dated 26.09.2007 of the Government of Punjab permitting regularization of possession of these unauthorized occupants is not valid. We are of the opinion that such letters are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In our opinion such illegalities cannot be regularized. We cannot allow the common interest of the villagers to suffer merely because the unauthorized occupation has subsisted for many years. xxxxx 22. 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/unauthorized 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 regularizing the illegal possession . 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 regularizing the illegal possession . Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land." Nathu Ram v. D.D.A., 2022:DHC:375 "31. Thus, the Plaintiffs had a heavy onus to establish the following: (i) That they had acquired the suit property through legally recognized documents such as registered sale deed, allotment from governmental authorities, etc. However, no such documents were produced by the Plaintiffs. (ii) That the Plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property which falls in Khasra No 48/7this ought to have been established by positive evidence and not by an inference. (iii) That the Plaintiffs had to rely on documents proved in accordance with law, even to establish possession -however, in this case, only some spattering revenue records which were marked and not even exhibited, were relied upon by the Plaintiffs. xxxxx 35. Accordingly, the onus was clearly on the Plaintiff, which the Plaintiff has failed to discharge. 36. In view of the above settled legal position, that mere sporadic or stray entries in the revenue records cannot confer title, and the facts mentioned above, this Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that there is any substantial question of law which deserves to be adjudicated upon in the present second appeal. In fact, from the evidence which has emerged from the record, it is clear that apart from some mention in khasra girdawaris, there are no other concrete documents which have been filed by the Plaintiff to discharge the heavy onus that is placed on him. 37. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the suit property in question is stated to be near a South Delhi Colony, adjacent to Safdarjung Enclave/Green Park and is very valuable. 37. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the suit property in question is stated to be near a South Delhi Colony, adjacent to Safdarjung Enclave/Green Park and is very valuable. The Plaintiff who is in possession of a large part of this suit property, cannot continue to remain in possession, as permitting the same would be a giving a premium to illegal encroachments and occupations on public land. 38. The present second appeal accordingly deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. All pending applications are also disposed of. Sanatan Dharam Mandir Society v. Union of India 2013:DHC:4202 "25. In my opinion, the respondents/defendants cannot be compelled to do so. The order of eviction under the PP Act against Sh. Raghbir singh has become final. The documents proved on record show that Sh. Raghbir Singh was proceeded against as Secretary of the Sanatan Dharam Mandir and not in his personal capacity. Upon enquiry whether the appellant/plaintiff has proved as to who are the founding members of the appellant / plaintiff or what was / is the constitution or the rules and regulations of the appellant/plaintiff society, the counsel for appellant / plaintiff replies in negative. It is well nigh possible that Sh. Raghbir Singh, after the order of eviction against him, with certain others formed the appellant / plaintiff Society Sh. Raghbir Singh or for that matter others in management of the temple cannot merely by incorporation of the appellant / plaintiff society have a second round. The public authorities who are owners of the land cannot be compelled to so repeatedly take proceedings for ejectment merely because the encroachers over the public land re-encroach The Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath (1994) I SCC 1 has held that the Courts are today inundated with encroachers of public land and have to deal with them appropriately. xxxxxx 31. The counsel for the appellant / plaintiff states that the possession of the appellant/plaintiff be protected for a period of two weeks. 32. The appellant/plaintiff having been found to be a rank trespasser and re-encroacher over the land, has no equities in its favour and is not found entitled to any sympathy, more so when there was no interim protection during the pendency of the suit. " 32. The settled legal position is that no one can claim rights in public lands. 32. The appellant/plaintiff having been found to be a rank trespasser and re-encroacher over the land, has no equities in its favour and is not found entitled to any sympathy, more so when there was no interim protection during the pendency of the suit. " 32. The settled legal position is that no one can claim rights in public lands. Even innocent purchasers cannot claim any rights over public land. Thus, the Applicants have been rightly advised to not claim any title in the land in question and have undertaken to vacate the property. However, considering the fact that it has been more than a year since they have been before this Court by way of a writ petition, in the opinion of the Court, the time which is sought by the said applicants of six months is too long. They have already enjoyed this property after notice being served for more than a year now. 33. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that urgent action needs to be taken to secure the property of the DWB. Accordingly, the following directions are being issued. i. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Divisional Commissioner, Delhi, in coordination with Ms. Chandan Chaudhary, DCP (South), shall undertake all the legal formalities in order to ensure that the eviction of unauthorised occupants from the property takes place at an early date. The steps for eviction shall be taken immediately. The eviction of all persons in unauthorised occupation except in the pink portion of the sketch, shall be commenced from next week and concluded within the next one month i.e., by 20th October, 2023. ii. The Applicants shall file undertakings before the Court that they would handover the peaceful and vacant physical possession of the premises, which is under their occupation, by 25th November, 2023. The said undertaking be filed within one week. iii. Insofar as the Applicants who are in occupation of the pink coloured portion in paragraph no. 20 is concerned, if they do not themselves voluntarily vacate by 25th November 2023, eviction shall be carried out and be concluded by 1st December, 2023. iv. The Applicants are, accordingly, directed to make alternate arrangements to ensure that the above orders are given effect to and no obstacle and impediment is created. 20 is concerned, if they do not themselves voluntarily vacate by 25th November 2023, eviction shall be carried out and be concluded by 1st December, 2023. iv. The Applicants are, accordingly, directed to make alternate arrangements to ensure that the above orders are given effect to and no obstacle and impediment is created. If any unauthorised occupant is found to be creating any hindrance or impediment in the implementation of this order, action for contempt shall be liable to be taken against all such persons. 34. Both the applications are disposed of in the above terms. The SDM who has joined proceedings today as also the counsel for the GNCTD shall communicate today's order to the concerned officials who have been given the responsibility to ensure vacation of the suit property. 35. List for compliance on 12th December, 2023. The earlier date fixed i.e., 25th September, 2023 stands cancelled.