( 1 ) SH. RAM Babu has sought permanent and mandatory injunction against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in Short M. C. D.) and Delhi Development Authority (in short DDA ). Alongwith the said suit the plaintiff vide the present application has sought ad- interim injunction.

( 2 ). Plaintiff s main grievance is that he has been carrying on his distribution of Kerosene Oil business in the shop bearing No. 11667 Gali No. 2, Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh, since January,1988. Plaintiffs have been paying damages charges and have been assessed to property tax since 1954. The defendant MCD through its Engineer defendant No. 2 has now threatened to demolish this property which is in existence for the last more than 30 years. No notice of demolition has been served. Even the water and electricity connections have been installed in these premises. The threat of demolition is on account of alleged road widening of road Ganga Mandir Marg, Sant Nagar, Prashad Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, by the MCD. This road starts from Pusa Road and goes upto Khalsa College. The MCD has discriminated against the plaintiff while taking up the work of road widening. MCD has not touched nor demolished other similarly situated properties in the same locality which fall within the alignment of road widening as those properties are also situated in the same direction. Plaintiff s property only has been isolated for demolition which action of the MCD is not only illegal, arbitrary but without jurisdiction.

( 3 ). This application has been contested by the M. C. D. , inter alia, on the grounds that plaintiffs are encroachers on public land. That the DDA might have charged damages but cannot charge for the encroachment of municipal land nor has charged for the shop unauthorisedly constructed outside premises No. 11667, Gali No. 2, Sant Nagar. In fact the Ministry of Surface Transport approved the scheme for widening of Ganga Mandir Marg Road from D. B. Gupta Road to Pusa Road in Karol Bagh. M. C. D. accepted the decision of the Govt. of India vide Resolution dated 11. 1. 90 and sanctioned the scheme. Execution of widening of road work started in 1991. The widening of road has been completed upto Tank Road. Widening of Road work has been held up due to these encroachments namely that of the plaintiffs, school, booster pumps, Milk Booths and DESU Sub-station.

( 4 ). I have heard Mr. S. K. Dubey for the plaintiff and Mr. D. K. Sharma for the M. C. D. It is an admitted case of the parties that M. C. D. has already widened the road upto Tank Road and the rest of the road could not be widened due to encroachments either by some private parties like plaintiffs or by one or the other Department of the M. C. D. Objection of the plaintiffs to the action of demolition by the M. C. D. had been that they have been discriminated as against others. This objection, to my mind, has no force. No one can have a right on public land nor plaintiffs, prima facie, can claim any right, title or interest in a public land simply because they were not evicted or removed from the public land for a long period. Nor an unauthorised user of public land is entitled to any notice as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Patnaji V. Union of India reported in 1993 SCALE page 562. Similar view has been taken by this Court in C. W. No. 5545/93 decided on 3. 11. 93 in the case of Rajinder Kakkar V. DDA and C. W. No. 2974/92 decided on 10. 5. 93. In fact houses of the plaitniffs bearing No. 11667, Gali No. 2 and 11726, Gali No. 3, Sant Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi are not raising any obstruction in the road widening nor fall in the alignment of the road widening. The perusal of the Map filed by the M. C. D. clearly show that plaintiffs have raised temporary structures on the Municipal Road which are not only unauthorised but fall in the alignment of road widening. Hence prima facie, plaintiffs have not been able to prove that they have any right to encroach the public land. They have fa