“9. In the show cause notice dated 12.11.2014, issued to the petitioner by Area Manager of respondent no.2, petitioner was called upon to explain as to why the letter of intent should not be withdrawn for constructing the godown in the land other than that mentioned in the application and verified during field verification. From the facts which have come on record the very contention raised as above appears to be incorrect for the reason that the petitioner has not constructed the godown in the land other than that mentioned in the application but has extended the said construction on some other land adjacent to the land mentioned in the application i.e. plot nos. 2 and 3. Had it been the fact that no construction is made on plot Nos. 2 and 3, the respondents had every reason to say that the petitioner has breached the condition. However, when the petitioner has carried out the construction by consolidating plot nos. 2 and 3 and plot nos. 31B, 32A and 32B, there could not have been any objection from the side of respondent no.2. Secondly, it does not appear to us that by purchasing additional land without informing respondent no.2 and by carrying out the construction in the said additional land by consolidating the said land and plot nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner has committed breach of any term or condition prescribed by respondent no.2. Moreover, no prejudice can be said to have caused to respondent no.2 because of the petitioner making construction of the godown, in addition to plot nos.2 and 3, also on Plot Nos. 31B, 32A
