Per Mansoor, J.:— 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is aimed at to challenge the judgment and order dated 19th of May, 2010 passed by the learned writ court in OWP No. 210/2008, whereby the, writ petition came to be allowed, hereinafter for short as impugned judgment, ort the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Let us very briefly advert to the facts that have led the appellant to file this appeal, thus:- Respondent No. 9-writ petitioner in OWP No. 210/2008 had sought command by way of writ of mandamus restraining the writ respondents particularly respondent No. 7 & 8-Deputy Commissioner Srinagar and SHO Police Station Zainakote from causing any sort of interference into the peaceful possession of petitioner over the land measuring 3 kanals being plot No. 35-A for running his Small Scale Industrial Unit. The petitioner had also sought appropriate direction in the name of J&K Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd., hereinafter for short as SICOP from causing any interference into the construction of the factory premises on the parcel of the land which stands duly allotted in his favour situated at Industrial Estate Zainakote, Srinagar measuring 3 kanals which is registered also before Sub Registrar concerned. To sum up the case in nutshell before the learned writ court was that the provisional registration granted to the petitioner by Directorate of Industries and Commerce for setting up Small Scale Industrial Unit under the name and style of M/s Valley Massala Mills for setting up Small Scale Industrial Unit and requisite certificate was issued by the competent authority-Annexure A. The allotment order and lease deed are annexed as Annexure B and C to the writ petition. Petitioner has also deposited Rs. 6.00 lacs in the official chest of SICOP-Annexure D. Respondents without any right or reason are causing interference constraining the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the writ court. Writ respondents 3,4 and 6 admitted the claim of the writ petitioner but during the pendency of writ petition, appellant-M/s Optrex India Limited laid a motion for impleadment which was granted and they filed reply and contested the writ petition. Respondents 3, 4 and 6 have stated in the reply that a parcel of land measuring 3 kanals was officially allotted by the respondent-corporation to M/s Optrex India Pvt. Ltd. for setting up industrial unit at Industrial Estate Zainakote in the year 1977 on lease basis. Respondents 3, 4 and 6 have stated in the reply that a parcel of land measuring 3 kanals was officially allotted by the respondent-corporation to M/s Optrex India Pvt. Ltd. for setting up industrial unit at Industrial Estate Zainakote in the year 1977 on lease basis. The additional plot of land situated on the land measuring 17 kanals adjacent to the said land was allotted by the respondent-corporation to M/s Optrex India Ltd. in the year 1978 with a specific condition that the allottee will set up their unit immediately on the allotted land and will raise construction on their factory within 2/3 years. However, the M/s Optrex India Pvt. Ltd. failed to do so and utilized only a portion of land measuring 6 kanals for construction of factory and a show cause notice was issued to M/s Optrex India Pvt. Ltd to show cause why the unutilized land measuring 31 kanals is not retrieved and allotted to some other eligible SSI Unit. The explanation had to be submitted within twenty days period. M/s Optrex India Pvt. Ltd. instead of filing explanation preferred a suit before Sub Judge, Srinagar which is pending. It is further submitted that answering respondents retrieved the unutilized land from the defaulting unit and out of the said retrieved land petitioner has been allotted 3 kanals after following due procedure as envisaged by law in terms of Allotment Order No. 53-SWCS/S of 2008 dated 18.2.2008 and writ petitioner is in valid possession and occupation of the said land. 3. It appears that the subject matter of the writ petition is only 3 kanals of land which has been allotted in favour of the petitioner in terms of the order supra and the same has not been questioned by M/s Optrex India Pvt. Ltd. 4. It also transpires from the perusal of the record that despite having knowledge about the allotment of three kanals of land to petitioner-Valley Massala Mills, the appellant has not chosen to question the same and despite having been in know of the allotment has filed the motion of his own for impleadment. 5. The learned writ court after noticing the said facts rightly allowed the writ petition and restrained the respondents from causing interference. 5. The learned writ court after noticing the said facts rightly allowed the writ petition and restrained the respondents from causing interference. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned judgment herein:- "Since the land stands validly allotted in favour of the petitioner for which a valid lease deed has been executed and the said allotment order/lease deed too has not been challenged by M/s Optrex India Pvt. Ltd. they cannot take any objection to the raising of construction on the land by the petitioner in terms of the agreement executed by them with the Corporation." 6. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant was asked to show in which capacity Mehraj-ud-din Wali S/o Ghulam Rasool Wali R/o Buchwara Dalgate, Srinagar has filed this appeal? The counsel submitted that he has filed the appeal as an attorney holder. But no such attorney is on the file. But what transpires from the perusal of the record is that the both application for impleadment and appeal has been filed as a Director of the Company Optrex India Pvt. Ltd. But again, there is no document available on the file to substantiate the fact of him being a Director of the Company or to suggest that he is vested with any power to file application for impleadment or even the appeal. 7. Mr. Haqani, during the course of arguments, also produced Photostat copy of the documents addressed to the Estates Manager, SICOP, Natipora and Director of Industries and Commerce J&K, Govt. Srinagar dated April, 14,1985 and 4th of July, 1985 respectively, whereby appellant has admitted that they have failed to utilize the land. 8. In the given circumstances, we are of the considered view that impugned judgment is well reasoned and needs no interference. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is found to be without any merit and is dismissed as such.