Judgment Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 having being aggrieved by an order dated 7/9/06 passed by the writ court in Writ Petition No.2286/02 (Veer Chand & another Vs. State of M.P. & others). By the aforesaid order, the writ court disposed of the petition with the following directions:- “In view of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners I do not find any illegality in demolishing the portion of the property, which wa constructed after encroaching upon the public road. In such circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction that respondents are at liberty to demolish any property, which is constructed beyond the boundaries mentioned in map Annexure P-5. If respondents want to demolish any portion of the property, which is within the limits of Annexure P-5, then they may do so after (Nihal Chand Vs. State of M.P. & others) following due procedure laid down in the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 and after giving an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. In the result, the petition is disposed of with the aforesaid. No costs.” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the constructions were made as per the map marked as Annexure-P/5 but even after obtaining necessary permission to raise the construction and getting sanction of layout plan etc. from the competent authority, the respondents alleged that the appellant encroached on the government land and they are bound to demolish the same. It is contended that the writ court while passing the order impugned has not given consideration to the report of the Nazul Department that the constructions were raised on the land which since has been in continuous possession of the appellant and there has been no encroachment made. Therefore, the order impinged passed by the writ court is per se illegal and same is liable to be quashed. 4. By supporting the findings of the writ court, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that after examining the entire record and the material, a reasoned order was passed, which does not require any interference by this court. 5. 4. By supporting the findings of the writ court, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that after examining the entire record and the material, a reasoned order was passed, which does not require any interference by this court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the impugned order, this is of the view that there is no illegality in the approach of the writ court. The order is passed on proper evaluation of the facts and law and the court has not committed any flaw in directing the authorities concerned to demolish construction of the property which has been raised by ignoring the limits fixed as per the schedule of the map (Annexure-P/5). The court was further justified in observing that if the respondents wanted to demolish any portion of the property, which is within the limits of Annexure P-5, then before taking any further action, they shall follow due procedure as laid down in the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 and provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 6. Hence, the findings given by the learned writ court are perfectly legal and not suffered from any infirmity or illegality whatsoever. The order passed by the writ court is well merited which calls for no interference by this court. The appeal thus fails and is dismissed.