JUDGMENT : Paresh Upadhyay, J. Prayer: Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 12.11.2021 made in W.P.No.11851 of 2015. 1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 12 November 2021 recorded on W.P.No.11851 of 2015. This appeal is by the sole respondent in the writ petition. 2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that, the relief granted by the writ court in substance has acknowledged the encroachment by the writ petitioner. It is submitted that the relief as prayed for by the writ petitioner should not have been granted. It is further submitted that to remove the encroachment, the present appellant would be required to go to Civil Court which would be time consuming and therefore the action of the appellant of not approving the re-constitution of the partnership firm of the writ petitioner ought not to have been interfered with by learned Single Judge. It is submitted that this appeal be entertained. 3. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under:- 3.1 The writ petitioner was allotted a plot by the present appellant in an Industrial Estate. The said allottee is a partnership firm. In due course of time, there was re-constitution of the firm i.e., some of the partners retired and remaining partners become full fledged partners. It is this re-constitution of partnership firm which was put to the notice of the appellant authorities to take note of it on record. This was not accepted by the present appellant on the ground that according to it, the writ petitioner has encroached on some part of the land of SIDCO. 3.2 Learned Single Judge, on the basis of the material on record, recorded satisfaction that the point at issue in the writ petition was not whether the writ petitioner was encroacher or not. The point at issue was only that, when there was change in the constitution of the partnership firm, whether the SIDCO could have refused to take note of it on its record allegedly on the ground that, according to SIDCO there was some encroachment by the writ petitioner. The existence of encroachment or otherwise could not be a guiding factor for updating record of SIDCO. The existence of encroachment or otherwise could not be a guiding factor for updating record of SIDCO. Re-constitution of partnership firm and taking note of that fact on record had nothing to do with the fact whether there was any encroachment or otherwise. The relief granted by the writ court therefore can not be said to be erroneous in any manner which may call for any interference by us. This appeal therefore needs to be dismissed. 4. We make it clear that non-interference in this appeal is not to mean any observation with regard to the alleged encroachment as perceived by the present appellant. 5. This appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.416 of 2022 would not survive.