Trespassers has no locus standi to invoke writ jurisdiction.

In all these writ petitions facts are similar and the respondents are also same. The petitioners in all these cases are trespassers of the Government land, and they claim that they have put up constructions and have also obtained electricity connection. It is also their case that they are paying property tax. In all these cases, respective petitioners admit that they came into occupation of poromboke land, not on the basis of any consent by the Government. Their case is that on 210. 1997, the respondents-officers sought surrender of possession, which necessitated the filing of these writ petitions. The relief sought for in all these writ petitions is to issue a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from taking any action for dispossessing the petitioners from the respective premises, without following the procedures laid down under the Land Encroachment Act. Even though there are number of writ petitions, I do not want to extract the facts separately in view of the common case put forward by them.

2. A learned Judge of this Court while ordering notice of motion ordered to maintain statu quo. After receipt of notice, learned Additional Government Pleader argued the case on instructions.

3. While extracting the facts, I have stated that the petitioners admit that they are in possession of the Government land, and they also do not claim that they came into possession on the basis of consent by the Government. They are rank trespassers is evident from their own admission. Even though they claim to be in possession for the last more than 20 years their legal status is only as trespassers. Whether in such cases, the court can help such persons by issuing Writ of mandamus as sought for.

4. In Basu’s Shorter Constitution of India - Twelfth Edition (1996), the learned author at pages 597 and 598 has said that “in order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of mandamus, the applicant must satisfy the following conditions:

(i) The applicant must show that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty (as distinguished from a discretion), by the party against whom the mandamus is

sought, and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition.

.(ii) The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution; a statute; common law or by rules or orders having the force of law.”

5. In the decision reported in The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh and others, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2149: (1977)4 S.C.C. 145, in paragraph 15 of the judgment at page 2154 of the reports, their Lordships held thus:

“There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance.” Of course, in that case the question that came up for consideration was whether in the case of contracts, writ of mandamus could be issued. But the principle that how far a writ of mandamus could be issued is a declaration of law, which applies in all circumstances.

6. It also cannot be doubted that issue of writ of mandamus is purely a discretionary and equitable remedy. A person who commits wrong cannot get the aid of court, so as to support his claim. In A.P.Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1430: (1986)2 S.C.C. 667: (1986)1 A.P.L.J. (S.C.) 70: (1986)2 S.C.J. 594,