WP(C) 6374/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr MK Doley, the learned counsel for the petitioner also heard Ms Sarma, the learned GA, appearing for the State respondents. The writ petition is directed against the settlement of Min Mahal made b y the respondent No. 3, which was for a period of five years commencing from 11. 01.2006 to 10.02.2011. It is self evident that the settlement period is now admi ttedly over. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that ther e are certain special circumstances which can be a ground for extending the sett lement period by the State Govt. If that is so, the petitioner may approach the State Govt. for extension of the settlement. It is however, clarified by the le arned counsel for the petitioner that a representation to that effect has alread y been submitted by the petitioner. Be that as it may, this writ petition has b ecome infructuous by efflux of time and is accordingly disposed of. Nevertheles s, the State respondents are directed to consider the representation of the peti tioner and take a decision thereon in accordance with law within a period of thi rty days from the date of receipt of this order. Writ petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above.