Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the orders as contained in Annexures 7, 9 and 10 wherein the petitioners have been held to be encroachers upon the land belonging to the Bihar State Housing Board and a direction has been issued to remove the encroachment by demolishing the construction. 3. Certain properties/flat was allotted in favour of one Saryu Kumar Mahto. An application for additional construction on the land belonging to the Housing Board was submitted and after awaiting for some time, after receiving no reply, the petitioners and their predecessors in title raised construction on the land belonging to the Housing Board. 4. It appears that the matter was first instituted against Saryu Kumar Mahto and after finding that he had expired, the petitioner, namely, Ganga Devi and Nandu Lal were substituted in his place and notices were served upon them. After receiving the notice they filed their reply and submitted that they had made an application for allotment of certain land with permission to raise construction and as the application was not rejected in accordance with Section 78 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982 (in short "the Act"), the petitioners were justified in making the construction. 5. The three authorities have come to the conclusion that the land over which construction has been made does not belong to the petitioners. They have also found that without seeking any allotment order or without obtaining any favourable order in their favour, the petitioners or their predecessor in title could not make construction. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before this Court that in accordance with Section 78 (2) of the Act, the petitioners were justified in raising the construction. It is also submitted that the appellate order sans the reasons, therefore, the order passed by the appellate forum deserves to be quashed and the matter be remitted back. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ application. 7. Section 78 of the Act simply provides that an application can be made for construction, erection, re-erection addition or alteration. It no where says that for making construction over the unallotted land, the provisions of section 78 would apply. Section 78 does not relate to an application for allotment but it relates to unauthorised construction without approval or construction in violation of provisions of rules/regulations. It no where says that for making construction over the unallotted land, the provisions of section 78 would apply. Section 78 does not relate to an application for allotment but it relates to unauthorised construction without approval or construction in violation of provisions of rules/regulations. The proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 78 simply says that the maximum limit for approval of plan shall not exceed period of six months from the date of its receipt and if such approval is not given or the plan is not rejected then it shall be deemed that such plan stands approved. 8. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner was not owner/title holder/allottee of the piece of the land. He wanted to make certain construction on the land belonging to the housing board. Under such circumstances provisions of Section 78 of the Act would not apply. 9. So far as the appellate orders are concerned, this Court need not interfere in the matter simply on the ground that the order sans reasons because even otherwise this Court is not satisfied about the merits of the matter. 10. This application is dismissed.