JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. 1. By way of this writ appeal, the appellant - Sweda Construction Company - has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge passed on 10/06/2014 in W.P.(C) No. 4221/2007. 2. The appellant claims to be a construction company and in possession, since last many years, of a plot of Government land measuring about 4 Kathas 10 Lechas covered by Touji No. 12 Dag No. 16, 17, 18 and 19 of Village-Basistha in Beltola Mouza, District-Kamrup, Assam. In Paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the appellant has pleaded that the plot of land in its possession is being used for keeping the construction materials. 3. As possession of appellant was found to be unlawful, it was served with a notice for eviction. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the writ petition challenging the eviction notice. The appellant also prayed that it was entitled for due settlement of land since such settlement was granted in the neighbourhood - M/S Nezone Health Tech (P) Ltd. through orders dated 03.08.2006 and 23.05.2006. 4. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petition vide impugned Judgment and order on the ground that the appellant is an encroacher of Government land and mere fact that it has been paying Touzi Bahira Tax -which is nothing but a fine levied on encroachers of Government land - does not, in any way, improve its status from an encroacher. Besides, the appellant being a profit earning company does not come within the category of landless person to be considered for settlement of Government land and in absence of any supporting document with respect to its claim for consideration in the same footing that of M/S Nezone Health Tech (P) Ltd., the reliefs sought by it could not be granted. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for both the parties as well as upon perusal of the materials available on the records, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view of the learned single Judge. The case of the appellant for consideration for settlement of the occupied lands in question, does not arise as it is a profit making construction company and has been using the plot of Government land only for keeping the construction materials of the company and not for any ‘speedy industrial development in the state’. 6. The case of the appellant for consideration for settlement of the occupied lands in question, does not arise as it is a profit making construction company and has been using the plot of Government land only for keeping the construction materials of the company and not for any ‘speedy industrial development in the state’. 6. It may be mentioned herein that item 7.2 of Land Policy, 1989 provides that ‘for speedy industrial development in the state the Government may specially consider allotment or settlement of available and suitable land for the industrial purposes keeping in view of the Industrial Policy of Assam.’ In the instant case, there is no obvious ground to even remotely suggest that the settlement of the lands in question, in favour of the appellant-company, would trigger ‘speedy industrial development in the state’. Besides, there being no satisfying material to either show that the appellant-company is a landless person or its case is squarely covered with that of neighbour company-M/S Nezone Health Tech (P) Ltd., we do not find sufficient merit in the present appeal. The appellant is an encroacher of Government land and as such does not enjoy any indefeasible right to claim settlement over the illegally occupied Government land and the authority has every right and power to evict it by following due process of law. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.