ORDER 1. The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 15.1.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue in Case No.3/Revision/1107-2/11, whereby the orders dated 15.6.2011 passed by the learned Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena as well as order dated 25.4.2011 the learned Collector, District Bhind in suo motu revision proceedings were set aside and the order dated 24.7.2007 passed by the Tehsildar and order dated 7.9.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, whereby patta for plantation of trees (as per the provisions of section 249 of M.P. Land Revenue Code) in favour of present respondent No.1-Trust was approved. 2. Short facts of the case are that on 4.12.2005 an application was filed on behalf of respondent no.1 for grant of tree plantation lease for 46 khasra numbers area admeasuring 55.43 hectares. On the said application a Case No.1/06-07/A-61 was registered by Tehsildar and vide order dated 24.7.2007 patta was granted for tree plantation in favour of respondent no.1-Trust. Against the said order one Sarnam filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, which was registered as Appeal No. 41/06-07/appeal and vide order dated 7.9.2007 the appeal was partly allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer, whereby the lease was varied to the extent of annulment of lease granted for Khasra NO.453 area admeasuring 4.73 hectare. 3. Thereafter on 12.12.2010 a complaint was made to the Chief Minister regarding breach of condition of plantation lease and misuse of government land by the Trust. Over such complaint a report was called from Tehsildar. On 3.2.2011 after receiving the report from the concerning Tehsildar and finding various infirmities regarding misusing of plantation lease the matter was directed to be taken in suo motu revision, hence, Collector registered the case as Suo Motu Revision No.9-10/2011. Vide order dated 25.4.2011 the Collector allowed the said revision and cancelled the order granting patta to the respondent No.1 and directed the entries in Khasra to be corrected. 4. Against the said order dated 25.4.2011 the respondent No.1 preferred another Revision No.148/10/11 before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.6.2011 and the order passed by the Collector in suo motu revision dated 25.4.2011 was affirmed. 5. 4. Against the said order dated 25.4.2011 the respondent No.1 preferred another Revision No.148/10/11 before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.6.2011 and the order passed by the Collector in suo motu revision dated 25.4.2011 was affirmed. 5. Against both the orders another Revision No.1107-II/11 was preferred before Board of Revenue which was allowed vide order dated 15.1.2015 and the orders passed by the Commissioner and Collector dated 25.4.2011 and 15.6.2011 were set aside. Aggrieved by the aforesaid the present petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset while referring to the another petition preferred by the State against the impugned order had argued that in the said matter this Court on 28.11.2023 had issued directions for the State to explain what action was taken against the officers in error, who granted lease in favour of the respondents and in pursuance thereof Collector had found that the illegality has been committed by the then Tehsildar and the Halka Patwari, therefore, direction to initiate the disciplinary action against them were issued vide letter dated 6.2.2024. Thus, when illegality has already been found by the respondents in granting patta in favour of respondent No.1, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the petitioners are in occupation of the land bearing Survey No.311, 451, 478 from last 100 years and are cultivating the land and when in the year 2012 in Case No.9/2011-12 they were found in illegal possession vide order dated 26.3.2012 fine was imposed upon them which has been paid, thus, the petitioners being in possession of the land in question, they have every locus to challenge the impugned order. 8. Learned counsel has also submitted that as per the deleted provisions of section 162 of M.P. Land Revenue Code the petitioners are entitled to get the land on patta and as the possession of the petitioners have been recorded in the revenue records the land could not have been granted to the respondent no.1 on patta for the purpose of tree plantation, but, learned Board of Revenue had failed to consider the same and had passed the impugned order, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed reliance in the matter of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed reliance in the matter of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others, (1976) 1 SCC 671 and had argued that Article 226 of the Constitution in comprehensive Phraseology enables the High Court to reach injustice, wherever it is found, and as great injustice has been caused to the petitioners under the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the impugned order be quashed. 9. On the other hand learned counsel for the State had supported the case of the respondent no.2 and had submitted that the order of Board of Revenue is perse illegal and therefore it be set aside, but he candidly admits that the Misc. Petition No.857/2021 preferred on behalf of the State against the impugned order herein had been dismissed in non-compliance of the conditional order dated 29.5.2024 on 16.7.2024 and till date it has not been restored. 10. None for the respondent No.1. 11. Admittedly herein case the petitioner is the encroacher over the lands in question. They do not have any right and title in themselves over the said land. The locus of the petitioner for filing the present petition has been claimed only on the basis of the possession and referring to provisions of a deleted section 162 of the M.P.L.R.C. it has been urged that they are entitled for grant of patta on the said land since they are cultivating crops, the patta thus, granted in favour of the respondent no.1 for tree plantation was perse illegal and therefore, the order passed by the Board of Revenue affirming the order of Tehsildar granting patta and the order in appeal by the S.D.O. deserves to be set aside and that of the orders of Collector in suo motu revision and the Commissioner deserves to be restored. 12. The contention of the petitioners appears to be wholly misconceived firstly the status of the petitioners are that of encroachers. There is no document of any rights in their favour, never they have applied before any competent authority for grant of patta or had approached any civil court for declaring their rights on the basis of possession against the true owners i.e. State. There is no document of any rights in their favour, never they have applied before any competent authority for grant of patta or had approached any civil court for declaring their rights on the basis of possession against the true owners i.e. State. When the petitioners themselves do not have any right in the property, they cannot agitate a claim for protection of their possession and therefore, when no fundamental rights of the petitioner has been infringed, according to this Court they cannot maintain a writ petition as a writs are legal remedies available to individuals whose fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution has been violated or are likely to be violated and writ under Article 226 of the Constitution can be issued only when there is proven infringement of fundamental rights. 13. So far as the Misc. Petition preferred by the respondent/State is concerned the same has been dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order on 16.7.2024. Thus, the benefit of pendency of the said petition cannot be had to the petitioners. So far as the interim directions issued to the State to explain the action taken against the erring officials to grant lease in favour of the respondents is concerned, on perusal of the letter dated 6.2.2024 it appears that the action was proposed to be taken or taken against the erring officials was due to the fact that in place of Collector as Manager in the revenue records the name of the respondent No.1 was recorded, which was found to be illegal and the aforesaid fact also cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. 14. Thus, so far as the order impugned dated 15.1.2015 is concerned the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. Therefore, they cannot claim that any injustice has been done to them and the judgement so cited by them had no applicability to the present case. 15. From the aforesaid discussion this Court also finds that by way of present petition the petitioner is challenging an order of the year 2015 in the year 2021 after a delay of more than 6 years and there is no explanation in column No.4 with regard to such delay. Thus, on this count also the petition deserves to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the petition being sans merits and is hereby dismissed.