Honble YADAV, J. — The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking a relief to quash the impugned order dated 7.5.91, Anx. 9 to the writ petition, passed by the Collector, Jaisalmer. (2). The brief facts which are necessary to be noticed for effective decision of the instant writ petition, are that the petitioner was allotted a piece of land measuring 100 x 400 in Khasra No. 413-414/982 in Town Jaisalmer Tehsil and District Jaisalmer by Collector, Jaisalmer under his order dated 25.11.83, Anx. 1 to the writ petition, to set up on the said plot of land a Electrical Equipments Manufacturing Industry within a period of two years from the date of taking over possession of the land in question. It is alleged by the petitioner that petitioner was given possession on 11.5.84 but admittedly no Electrical Equipment has been set up even after interval of more than 11 years. According to the terms and conditions of Anx. 1 to the writ petition the petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 200/- as development charges per acre and to pay Rs. 30/- as rent per acre per annum which amounts to Rs. 27.55 per year. (3). It is alleged by the petitioner that he has deposited Rs. 183.66 as development charges and Rs. 27.55 as rent for the year 1984-85 on 29.11.83 in accordance with the terms and conditions of Anx. 1 to the writ petition. The said lease was for a period of 99 years. The lease-deed was executed on 4.7.84, copy whereof is filed as Anx. 2 to the writ petition. (4). It is alleged in para 7 of the writ petition that although on papers the possession of the land was given to the petitioner on 11.5.84 but actual physical possession was not given to him as the land in dispute was under encroachment of some persons who have made their huts on the said land. Although the petitioner has constructed fencing wall on the land costing to Rs. 16,000/- | (5). It is further alleged in para 8 of the writ petition that the petitioner tried his level best to get the vacant possession of the land and he wrote several letters to the Collector and to Dy. Director, DIC, Jaisalmer. The copies of these letters written on 3.12.85, 6.7.90 and 7.7.90 are filed alongwith the writ petition as Anx. 4, 5 and 6 respectively. Director, DIC, Jaisalmer. The copies of these letters written on 3.12.85, 6.7.90 and 7.7.90 are filed alongwith the writ petition as Anx. 4, 5 and 6 respectively. (6). After service of notice, a detailed reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 denying the facts alleged in the writ petition. (7). In reply to para 7 of the writ petition it is stated by the answering respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the physical possession of the land in dispute has already been given to the petitioner and thus it was the responsibility of the petitioner to look after his property. According to the averments made in para 7 of the reply, since the physical possession was handed over to the petitioner on 11.5.84 and no industry for which land was allotted was installed within a period of two years from the date of delivery of physical possession of the land in question, the petitioner has committed a breach of condition No.3 (4) of the agreement. Hence the respondent No.2 has rightly cancelled the lease vide Anx. 9 to the writ petition. (8). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Mohd. Sabir Gauri and Shri L.M. Lodha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l and 2 at length and have critically gone through the material available on record. (9). The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that since no actual physical possession was handed over to him and only symbolic possession was handed over to him on 11.5.84 hence the lease-deed cannot be cancelled by the Collector, respondent No.2, by his impugned order dated 7.5.91, Anx. 9 to the writ petition. (10). It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me that all other formalities have been completed by the petitioner including construction of boundary wall over the disputed land and as the petitioner was running from pillar to post to get encroachment removed and his attempt has resulted into fiasco, therefore, he could not be able to instal a factory for which the land was allotted to him. (11). (11). It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 amounts hostile discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution of India hence it is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. In support of his aforesaid argument the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court consisting of Honble J.R. Chopra and Honble, R.S. Verma JJ. in the case of M/s. R.N. Products, Jodhpur vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (1). He has also placed reliance on an unreported decision rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2446 of 1991, (Sharif Mohd. vs. State ) decided on 13.12.93. (12). Learned counsel for the respondents Shri L.M. Lodha had refuted the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and urged before me that there is no error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as according to him admittedly within a period of two years no industry was installed although actual physical possession was handed over to the petitioner on 11.5.84 and the impugned cancellation order, Anx. 9 to the writ petition, was passed by the respondent No.2 on 7.5.91 after interval of 7 years. (13). According to the learned counsel for the respondents for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the question involved should be apparent on the face of record and it should not be made out after strenuous arguments of several hours as has been done in the present case. He further urged before me that as regards the question of delivery of possession to the petitioner it is admitted by the petitioner himself in para 7 of his writ petition that possession was delivered to him on 11.5.84 and has already constructed boundary wall but according to the petitioner there is some encroachment hence delivery of possession was incomplete. (14). At the end of his argument the learned counsel for the respondents brought to my notice a letter written by the petitioner himself in his own handwriting on 29.1.90 making a request to the Collector, Jaisalmer, respondent No.2, to allow him to start a Hotel Business over the disputed premises instead of setting up a Electrical Equipments Manufacturing Industry for which land was allotted to him. This letter, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, indicates about the real intention of the petitioner not to instal the industry for production of Electrical equipments for which the land in question was allotted to him. (15). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contention raised at the bar and I would like to discuss the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in seriatim. (16). The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition before me is that no physical possession was given to the petitioner, therefore, he was prevented to instal the industry for which the land was allotted to him. In support of his aforesaid conditions the learned counsel placed reliance on Anx. 4, 5 and 6 to the writ petition. (17). A close scrutiny of Anx. 4 to the writ petition leads towards an irresistible conclusion that the name of the persons who alleged to have encroached upon the disputed land are not disclosed. It is further evident from the averments made in para 3 of the said Anx. 4 that on the complaint of the petitioner the Government officials reached on the spot and all Kachcha huts were forceably removed. (18). It is also alleged in a most casual manner that there were some encroachments by way of semi pakka huts which were not removed but such persons were instructed to vacate the premises immediately. It is also alleged in most casual manner that after return of the Government officials, people having made encroachment by raising semi pakka huts continued their encroachments. (19). It is pertinent to note that the names of those persons who remained in possession even after forceable removal of the construction from the disputed land by the government officials are not disclosed. As a matter of fact in view of the hand written letter dated 29.1.90, placed before me by the learned counsel for the respondents, the allegation made by the petitioner to the effect that even after forceable removal of construction from the disputed land by the government officials they continued their encroachment does not inspire my confidence as the petitioner himself was not interested to instal the industry for producing Electrical Equipments for which the land in dispute was allotted to him. In fact he was interested to instal a Hotel which was more profitable to him. In fact he was interested to instal a Hotel which was more profitable to him. (20). In fact the land in dispute was allotted to him on cheap rate of rent to establish an industry as measure of incentive to start an industry in District Jaisalmer which is earmarked as industrially a backward area. (21). In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that the petitioner has deliberately committed a breach of condition No.3 (4) of Anx. 1 to the writ petition and after committing the breach of aforesaid condition and failing to instal the industry for production of Electrical Equipments within two years from the date of delivery of possession which is to be computed from 11.5.84, the respondent No.2 was fully justified to cancel his allotment and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable. (22). In my humble opinion the impugned Anx. 9 is eminently just and proper and does not require indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, from the averments of the writ petition it is apparent on the face of record that the possession was handed over to the petitioner on 11.5.84 and the allotment was cancelled on 7.5.91 vide Anx. 9 to the writ petition by the respondent No.2 after interval of 7 years but within this period no attempt was ever made by the petitioner to instal a factory for which land was allotted to him. (23). It must be taken to be settled principle of law that mere illegality is no ground to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if this Court is satisfied that material justice has been done between the parties by the impugned order. I am fully satisfied that by the order impugned material justice has been done between the parties, therefore, no interference is called for. (24). It is also urged before me that this Court has unfettered power under Article 226 of the -Constitution of India to quash the impugned order Anx. 9 to the writ petition. The aforesaid argument is based on misconception of law. This Court does not and should not act as a court of appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9 to the writ petition. The aforesaid argument is based on misconception of law. This Court does not and should not act as a court of appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Our powers under Article 226 are purely discretionary and though no limits can be placed upon that discretion yet it must be exercised on definable pattern and not arbitrarily. One of the self imposed limitation by this Court under Article 226 is that this Court will not exercise its jurisdiction in a case unless substantial injustice has ensued or is likely to ensue. This turned will not allow it self to be court into a courts of appeal or revision to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion injustice in a broad and general sense. (25). The second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has completed other formalities including construction of the boundary wall, therefore, his allotment should not have been cancelled on the breach of condition No.3 (4) as stipulated in the agreement Anx.l to the writ petition. In my humble opinion where there is a clear stipulation that the lessee shall set up on the said plot of land Electric Equipment Manufacturing Industry for which land has been allotted to him by the lesser within a period of two ears from the date of taking over possession of the land in case of his failure to do so the said plot shall revert to the lesser unless the period of two years is extended by the lesser on valid grounds. Undeniably neither any attempt was made by the petitioner to get two years period extended nor any such extension has been granted by the respondents in this case. (26). A close scrutiny of agreement Anx. 1 and the impugned order Anx. 9 revealed that on failure of the petitioner to instal the industry within two years from the date of taking over possession the respondent No.2 was perfectly justified to cancel the lease and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable to me. (27). The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been meted out a hostile discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (28). (27). The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been meted out a hostile discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (28). A close scrutiny of the averments made in the writ petition go a long way to prove that no such averments have been made in the body of the writ petition for which the petitioner is accountable. Only a ground to this effect has been taken which must be treated to have been prepared by counsel for the petitioner. In my considered opinion grounds prepared by counsel which depends on factual foundation must be averred in the body of the writ petition. As a matter of fact the facts about hostile discrimination are required to be averred in the body of the writ petition disclosing the names of those persons with whom the petitioner similarly circumstanced and the manner how a hostile discrimination is meted out to him. (29). No such averments have been made in the body of the writ petition on the basis of which usually grounds are prepared by the learned counsel. Secondly, even the ground No. 6 does not disclose how a hostile discrimination is meted out to the petitioner. Since no foundation has been led in the main petition and even in the ground no specific facts are stated attracting the applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the last contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not acceptable to me and is hereby repelled. (30). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the cases relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of M/s R.N. Products, Jodhpur (supra) and in case of Sharif Mohd. (supra), the facts and circumstances of aforesaid cases are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The ratio decidendi of the aforesaid two decisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case hence the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit of these two decisions cited on his behalf. (31). No other point has been argued before me except the arguments mentioned above. As a result of the aforementioned discussion, the instant writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs. (32). (31). No other point has been argued before me except the arguments mentioned above. As a result of the aforementioned discussion, the instant writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs. (32). After dictation of judgment, the learned members of the bar present in the Court made a request to make the judgment reportable. The request is allowed and the judgment is made reportable.