JUDGMENT : (Avneesh Jhingan, J.) : 1. This petition was filed seeking quashing of allotment of land measuring 4000 sq. meters situated at Plot No.SP-6 at Industrial Area, Kilkipura (Shivdaspura) Jaipur, in favour of respondent No.3. Further direction is sought to the respondents No.1 & 2 to allot the said land along-with other adjacent land to the petitioner after removal of encroachments. Parties:- 2. Krystal Stone Exports Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is the petitioner. Respondent No.1 is Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (for short ‘RIICO’). Respondent No.2 is Regional Manager, RIICO. Respondent No.3 is M/s. Precious Stone Private Limited. Facts:- 3. The facts as pleaded by the petitioner are that on 18.12.1996 the petitioner submitted an application for allotment of approximately 25,000/-sq. mts. of land. On 17.01.1997 Plot No.SP-2 at Kilkipura (Shivdaspura) Industrial Area, measuring 16,000 sq. mts. was allotted to the petitioner. On 29.01.1997 while handing over the physical possession, actual physical land available was found to be 14028 sq. mts. and was handed over. 4. The petitioner represented to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents’) for removal of the encroachments and allotment of the balance area. A letter dated 23.09.1998 was issued stating that a physical possession of plot in Industrial Area Kilkipura, District Jaipur, as per the sketch given on backside measuring 6742.80 sq. mtr. was handed over. But actually no physically possession was handed over. The petitioner in pursuance to the physical possession letter, deposited a sum of Rs.1,68,570/- through a cheque dated 16.05.1999 drawn on Central Bank of India, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 5. In pursuance to an application made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide communication dated 09.01.2007, the petitioner was informed that plot measuring 4000/-sq. meters by auction was allotted to respondent No.3. 6. Petitioner filed a representation dated 18.01.2007 for setting aside the allotment of plot to respondent No.3. Contentions of the Petitioner:- 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made an application for allotment of 25,000 sq. meters of land but 16000 sq. mtr of land was allotted and physical possession of 14028 sq. mtr. was handed over. The argument is that respondents assured for allotment of the balance land and consequently the physical possession letter dated 23.09.1998 was issued albeit, no physical possession was given. meters of land but 16000 sq. mtr of land was allotted and physical possession of 14028 sq. mtr. was handed over. The argument is that respondents assured for allotment of the balance land and consequently the physical possession letter dated 23.09.1998 was issued albeit, no physical possession was given. The contention is that the petitioner had deposited 25% of development charges in pursuance to the physical possession letter dated 23.09.1998, the petitioner is being forced to operate the unit in a plot measuring 14,000 sq. mtr. Contentions of the Respondents:- 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that the physical possession letter dated 02.09.1998 has no legal sanctity under the Disposal of Land Rules, 1979. The letter was procured by the petitioner in connivance with the Ferroman and Senior Regional Manager of RIICO. The Ferroman was not authorized to handover the physical possession of land and no possession was handed over. He further submits that the departmental proceedings were initiated against Sh. A.K. Agarwal, Senior Regional Manager, RIICO, for issuance of physical possession letter dated 02.09.1998. He contended that the cheque of Rs.1,68,570/-of the petitioner was not encashed, as no demand was raised. Relying upon the unrebutted pleadings in the reply, submission is that the petitioner till date has only utilized 15% of land originally allotted. Conclusion:- 9. The contention to set aside the plot allotted to respondent No.3 through auction has no merits. It would be relevant to note that the petitioner was allotted a Plot No.SP-6, Kilkipura (Shivdaspura) Industrial Area, whereas the allotment to respondent No.3 is of Plot No.SP-2 i.e. a different plot. 10. Heavy reliance placed upon the letter of physical possession dated 02.09.1998 for handing over the possession of land measuring 6742.80 sq. meters is of no avail. From the perusal of the letter, it is evident that no Plot number is mentioned in the letter. It would be pertinent to note that it is not the case of the petitioner that land measuring 6742.80 sq. meters was allotted to the petitioner or the physical possession was handed over. In this backdrop, the case set up by the respondents that the letter of physical possession was procured in connivance with the Ferroman and Senior Regional Manager gains strength. 11. There is another angle with regard to physical possession letter dated 29.01.1997. meters was allotted to the petitioner or the physical possession was handed over. In this backdrop, the case set up by the respondents that the letter of physical possession was procured in connivance with the Ferroman and Senior Regional Manager gains strength. 11. There is another angle with regard to physical possession letter dated 29.01.1997. The possession of the originally allotted land was handed over by the Assistant Site Engineer and is signed by him, whereas in the letter dated 23.09.1998, the seal is of Assistant Engineer (Site)/Assistant Regional Manager and the signatures are of Ferroman. No provision has been brought to the notice of this Court that Ferroman was authorized to handover the physical possession. 12. Moreover, the physical possession letter dated 23.09.1998 mentions that possession of land measuring 6742.80 sq. mtr. as per sketch given on back side is handed over but no sketch has been attached with the petition. 13. The claim made by the petitioner is based upon the disputed questions of fact. No illegality has been pointed out for interference by this Court to quash the allotment of land made to the respondent No.3. 14. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed.