JUDGMENT

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-This is a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India filed some time in May 1993 by the original petitioner Daljit Singh Dalal in person. It is said that this petition is in public interest. The original petitioner died soon after the filing of the petition. The son of the original petitioner, Bajrang Singh (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner ), has argued the present petition as a party in person.

2. Although the petitioner Bajrang Singh claims to be a lawyer, the petition does not set out either the facts or the contentions very clearly. Apparently, the disputed premises belonging to the original petitioner and his family members consist of Premises Nos. 2505, 2506 and 2670, Basti Punjabian, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. According to the petitioner, on 13th of May, 1993, portions of House No. 2670 were demolished by the Municipal Corporation. According to the petitioner his father, (that is to say the original petitioner), his daughter, daughter-in-law and her three small children were trapped on the second floor of that house. Four storeys of that house were demolished on 13th May, 1993. The present petitioner filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court on that day and obtained an order for the rescue of his family members who were trapped. These members were rescured on 14th of May, 1993. The original petitioner was in a coma and was taken to hospital. After some days he died.

3. According to the petitioner, the demolition was a mala fide act on the part of the Municipal Corporation at the instigation of the fourth respondent who did not like the activities of the petitioner and his father in giving shelter to the widows of sikhs killed in the Delhi riots. The petitioner has claimed in the petition compensation for the harassment caused to the family members and has prayed for a direction for rebuilding a Satnami Temple which, apparently, was established in the demolished building. He has also asked for payment of full compensation to himself. At the hearing, however, the petitioner said that he would not desire any compensation and he wanted action to be taken against the respondents.

4. There are several disputed questions of fact in this petition. The Station House Officer, Subzi Mandi Police Station, Delhi, who is respondent No. 8, has filed a counter-affidavit. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has also filed its counter-affidavit. In these affidavits, it is pointed out that there is no public interest involved in this writ petition. When the premises in dispute were inspected by the officers of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, it was found that the petitioner and/or his father had made substantial unauthorised and illegal constructions on this property by encroaching upon the public road/public land. The construction so made was obstructing the public at large. These illegal constructions were on public land, that is to say, the road in front of the premises and consisted of a ground floor, mezzanine, first and second floors.

5. There were various proceedings taken out by the petitioner and/or his father before various courts in Delhi in order to prevent demolition of these unauthorised constructions. On or about 5.3.1993 the Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissed Misc. No. 193 of 1992 entitled Daljit Singh versus M.C.D. by his order dated 5.3.1993. In the order he, inter alia, observed that the appellant, (the original petitioner before us), had made large scale unauthorised constructions not only on the ground floor but on all the floors. He further said, "M.C.D. has obligation to demolish all these unauthorised structures raised by the plaintiff in the garb of repair or by misuse of judicial process. The initial structure allowed to the appellant was only one garage of 15 x 10 and an area of 20 x 10 in front of this garage and staircase. All that exists apart from these premises is unauthorised and must be demolished. The review petition is her