ORDER I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and perused the records of this case. 2. Through this writ application, the petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 27.09.2005 issued to the Executive Director of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred to as “the BIADA”) issued to the Executive Director of the BIADA by the Regional Officer, BIADA, Patna requesting him to remove the encroachment over the land of the BIADA by certain persons by opening tea stall, Khatal, etc. The list also includes the petitioner’s tea stall at serial no. 14. 3. It is claimed by the petitioner that this is a consequential order in view of the communication dated 10.09.2005 intimating the petitioner that the Board of Director had taken a decision in its 12th Meeting dated 04.08.2005 to reject the proposal to settle and allot the land concerned in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner also seeks quashing of the communication dated 10.09.2005 as contained in Annexure 1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a land of dimension of 15 ft. x 60 ft. ((600 sq. ft. area) was temporarily allotted to the petitioner at the rental of Rs. 600/- (rupees six hundred) per month vide Annexure 3, which is a letter dated 30.07.1999 scribed by the Development Officer of BIADA addressed to the petitioner. There were certain terms and conditions and one of them was that the petitioner had to deposit three months’ advance rental of Rs. 1800/- (rupees one thousand eight hundred) by way of security which was to be adjusted after one year in the monthly rental after handing over the physical possession of the land. The petitioner was directed to execute agreement also within one month from the date of issue of such letter. However, one of the terms and conditions was that the allotment is absolutely temporary and the petitioner would have to vacate the same within one month of any notice for such purpose. The petitioner claims that he had deposited the necessary amount as well as form of agreement duly signed by him which is contained in Annexure 5. However, one of the terms and conditions was that the allotment is absolutely temporary and the petitioner would have to vacate the same within one month of any notice for such purpose. The petitioner claims that he had deposited the necessary amount as well as form of agreement duly signed by him which is contained in Annexure 5. However, by the letter dated 25.04.2005 as contained in Annexure 6, the Managing Director, BIADA, had sought approval of the Government for the aforesaid allotment on monthly basis in favour of the petitioner for establishing canteen since such allotment would be for non-industrial purpose. In its turn by letter dated 10.07.2000 some queries were made by the State Government which would be apparent from Annexure 7 such as what was the basis of the selection and what were the parameters for fixing the rental. However, learned counsel submits that the matter remained pending and in the meantime, the aforesaid query was replied and reminder was sent by the Development Officer, but in the year 2005 vide Annexure 1 the petitioner had been intimated that the Board of Director had rejected the proposal of allotment. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 taking a stand that by letter no. 2298 dated 02.06.2003, the Industry Department, Government of Bihar, Patna sent to the BIADA that the decision of the Board of Director in this regard be communicated. Learned counsel for the State submits that thereafter 12th Meeting was convened on 04.08.2005 and a decision was taken to cancel the proposal. A copy of the proceeding of the 12th Meeting of the Board of Directors has been appended as Annexure A and the petitioner’s matter appears to have been decided as Agenda No. 19. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was continuously coming in possession of the aforesaid plot and established a tea stall there. However, he has failed to show either from the averment made in the writ application or from any of his documents appended thereto as to on which date he was given physical possession of the land in question. The letter dated 30.07.1999 as contained in Annexure 3 only goes to show that advance money deposited by the petitioner would be adjusted in the monthly rental one year after handing over the physical possession of the concerned plot. The letter dated 30.07.1999 as contained in Annexure 3 only goes to show that advance money deposited by the petitioner would be adjusted in the monthly rental one year after handing over the physical possession of the concerned plot. A stand has been taken by the petitioner in paragraph 14 of the writ application that the petitioner was regularly paying monthly rental to the BIADA, but the BIADA was not granting any receipt pending concurrence by the Government. However, surprisingly, in his letter dated 10.11.2005 as contained in Annexure 10 addressed to the Managing Director, BIADA, a contrary stand has been taken that the petitioner was willing to deposit the rental but that has not been accepted on the pretext that the same would be accepted only after delivering the possession. That goes to show, apart from a contrary stand taken in the affidavit, that no physical possession was ever given to the petitioner with respect to the concerned allotment and the matter remained pending concurrence by the Government and finally the proposal for allotment had been rejected by the Board of Directors, BIADA. 7. In above view of the matter, petitioner’s possession can only be treated to be a possession as encroacher. This Court cannot give positive direction to the respondents to allot a piece of land to the petitioner for non-industrial purpose. 8. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference in the matter by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As a result, this writ application is dismissed. However, since a stand has been taken by the respondent that the Board of Directors has decided that the BIADA itself would construct shops and would make allotment on rental basis, the petitioner would be at liberty for making an application. In such case it is expected that if such occasion arises and the petitioner approaches then the respondents BIADA would take a stand in accordance with law.