ORDER : Aggrieved by order dated 06.06.2012 in Encroachment Case No. 02 of 201112 and order dated 31.01.2014 in Land Encroachment Appeal No. 2 of 2012 as well as order dated 16.03.2015 in Review Petition No. 01 of 2014, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner namely, M/s Corporate Ispat Alloys Limited entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.08.2008 with the respondent-State of Jharkhand for establishing an integrated steel plant with enhanced capacity of 2.5 MT per year. It is claimed that the proposed investment for setting up the said integrated steel plant is Rs. 9120/- crores. The government alloted 53.58/- acres of land on 20.02.2010 however, Encroachment Case No. 2 of 201112 was initiated by the Circle Officer, Kharsawan in which final order dated 06.06.2012 was passed directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment from land in question. The petitioner challenged the same by filing appeal which was dismissed and review petition filed against the order passed in the appeal has also been dismissed. 3. Referring to Clause 4 and 4.1 of MoU dated 14.08.2008, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-State of Jharkhand agreed to extend help and cooperation in several areas for construction, commission and for successful operation of the project. It is recorded in MOU dated 14.08.2008 itself that the State of Jharkhand is willing to extend all possible help and cooperation however, after allotting 53.58 acres of land, the respondent-State of Jharkhand did not granted settlement in respect of 5.16 acres of land. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, the petitioner has deposited 80% of the Salami calculated by the Additional Collector, SariakellaKharsawan and the proposal was forwarded however, in the meantime, the encroachment case was initiated by the Circle Officer in which a direction has been issued to the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment. Alleging arbitrariness on the part of the respondent-State of Jharkhand in ignoring the promise made in MoU dated 14.08.2008, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-State of Jharkhand is estopped from resiling from the promise made in MoU dated 14.08.2008. It is stated that the process of transfer is almost complete and it requires only administrative approval of the authority. 4. It is stated that the process of transfer is almost complete and it requires only administrative approval of the authority. 4. As against the above, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that the petitioner is an encroacher which is reflected in the construction made by the petitioner on 5.16 acres of land. The land has yet not been settled in its favour and the petitioner was never put in possession of the said piece of land however, it has on its own made construction thereon and therefore, a land encroachment case was initiated in which final order dated 06.06.2012 has been passed. It is further submitted that the reliance of the petitioner on Clause 4 and 4.1 of the MoU is misplaced in as much as, no legal right can be said to have accrued to the petitioner to occupy the government land. The bonafide of the respondent-State of Jharkhand is reflected in the proceeding which is evidenced in the proposal which has been sent for approval. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the documents on record, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The Memorandum of Understanding does not confers a legal right on the parties though, certain promises may have been made therein. [“Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others”, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 1 ]. Moreover, it is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent-State of Jharkhand has not extended its help in acquiring land for setting up integrated steel plant. Vide letter dated 03.04.2013 by the Additional Collector, which has been filed as Annexure6 to the writ petition, a proposal was forwarded for approval. The submission raised on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has made payment of 80% of the Salami calculated by the Additional Collector would not confer a right on the petitioner to occupy the government land before the proposal contained in letter dated 03.04.2013 is finally approved. The petitioner itself has claimed that the proposal for settling land in favour of the petitioner is in process. The petitioner itself has claimed that the proposal for settling land in favour of the petitioner is in process. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been put in possession by the respondent-State of Jharkhand legally nor any document has been produced, before this Court or in the land encroachment proceeding, by the petitioner to indicate that the petitioner has been put in possession by the respondent-State of Jharkhand. I find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the forums below. 6. I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.