HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shvam SharmaJJ. WRIT APPEAL N0.493/2011 APPELLANTS 1! M/S Kanha Steel, Plot No. 45/5, 6, 7, 8 Industrial Area, Village Bhanpuri, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Ramjit Singh, S/o Late Shri Ghughuli Singh, Aged about 38 years, Partner of M/s Kanha Steel, R/o A-133, Agye Nagar, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). Smt. Usha Devi Singh, W/o Ramjit Singh, aged about 35 years, Partner of M/s Kanha Steel, R/o A-133, Agye Nagar, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Through Managing Director, Jeevan Bima Complex, Pandri, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHl ACT. 2006 RESPONDENT Appearance: Mr. Sourabh Sharma and Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocates for the appelfants. SUNILKUMARSINHAJ. ORAL ORDER (02.11.2011) Heard on admission. Appellants/petitioners have flled this appeal against the order dated 19.10.2011 passed inW.P. (C) No. 6223/2011. By the impugned order, the writ Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the ^^ ^^ WRIT APPEAL N0.493/2011 appellants/petitioners for quashing of the communication dated 08.09.2011 (Annexure-P-1) and memos dated 20.09.2011 & 29.09.2011 (Annexure-P-2).The appellants/petitioners had also prayed for direction to decide their application dated 03.09.2011 for allotment of land to appellant No.1 . Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that a lease date for certain portion of land was executed in favour ofthe appellant No.1 on 08.10.10. Thereafter, the appellants/petitioners also occupied some adjacent land and they made an application for allotment of the same under the prevailing rules of Industries Department called as ChhatGsgaifi fndustries (Shade, Plot & Bhumi Avantan) Niyam, 1974. No action was teken on theapplication made by the appellants/petitioners and it was directed to the appellants/petitioners to remove their encroachment from the adjacent land for which they have made application. The Writ Court held that after making the application for allotment of the adjacent land, the appellants/petitioners did not become competent and authorized to encroach upon the land which was not allotted to them. The Writ Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition. It is not disputed before us that the land in question is in illegal occupation of the appellants/petitioners. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Writ Court. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissedand is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rahul Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge