Rampada Mondal vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

Pursuant to my earlier orders, State of West Bengal has filed a status report in the form of an affidavit affirmed by the Land Acquisition Collector,

Murshidabad, who is the second respondent in the writ petition. Such report is taken on record. A copy of the said report has been served to Mr.

Partha Pratim Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.

Mr. Roy had pressed the writ petition alleging that without any lawful expropriation of the writ petitioner from his land, the school of the 7th

respondent under the authority of the 3rd respondent was utilizing part of the said land of the petitioner for running one part of its school. He had

alleged encroachment by “Stateâ€​ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Today because of Mr. Chandi Charan De, learned Additional Government Pleader, it appears that the matter has been settled between the writ

petitioner and the school authorities with the mediation by the District Magistrate and Collector of Murshidabad. This appears from not merely the

pleadings in the affidavit (report in the form of an affidavit) but also the signed report of the District Magistrate and Collector, which is annexed to

such report. The relevant portion of the report is set out hereinbelow:

“3] The contention of the petitioner is that the Authority of Gobindapur Primary School of P.S. - Ranitala, Dist-Murshidabad has utilised

approximately 700 sq ft. of land of the petitioner. It appears that the name of school as mentioned in the writ petition should be 21, Purba Gobindapur

Kukarpara Primary School instead of 21, Gobindapur Primary School.

4] The matter has been brought to my notice today and it is foundthat the land is actually utilised by the School without paying any compensation to the

petitioner.

5] However at present the petitioner and the School Authority havearrived at an amicable settlement and he has no objection of his land being utilised

by the said school for the greater interest of the public. He has submitted one written statement with an affidavit which has been enclosed herewith

[Annexure R-1].â€​

Mr. Ratul Biswas, learned advocate appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4 confirms that this is also his instruction from his client. Mr. Roy appearing

for the writ petitioner appears to have misplaced his client and has no instruction in the matter. However, he does in all fairness submit that his client

informed him that some people have come to his client to settle the matter. It is not unknown to this Court that where parties settled the matter

between themselves often the learned advocate for the petitioner is no longer contacted by the parties or any of them.

Since there is no denial of such settlement, this writ petition can be disposed of holding that a cause of action of the writ petitioner, though based on

facts, has been wholly redressed by the goodwill and the act of the parties themselves and this writ petition, therefore, has been fruitful without

requiring further intervention of this Court.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of without any further orders being passed. The rules of the learned Additional Government Pleader and the

District Magistrate concerned are appreciated. There will be no order as to costs.