WP(C) 1756/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. MA Siekh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Soren, lea rned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 8. Also heard th e learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5. None appears for the other respondents. The petitioner, who is admittedly an encroacher in respect of a Govt. khas land which was earlier available for settlement at the relevant point of time, by the present application has prayed for a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 mo re particularly respondent No. 2 namely, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri to sett le the land measuring 2 bighas covered by dag No. 418/2009 situated at village K adamtola, Part-II, Revenue Circle Bilashipara, district Dhubri, which has been d escribed in Schedule A in the writ petition. It is the contention of the writ pe titioner that he is a landless person and is occupying the said land by paying t auji revenue. The case of the petitioner is that though he applied for settlement of the said land the respondents are processing the application filed by the Sarba Siksha A bhijan Mission for allotment of the land for setting up a school. In the backdro p of such contention, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with th e prayer as noted above. The respondent No. 5, Sarba Siksha Abhijan Mission has filed an affidavit-in-opp osition stating inter alia that the land measuring 2 bighas, 3 kathas, 15 lechas covered by dag No. 418 of village Kodamtola Part-II under Bilasipara Revenue Ci rcle has been allotted in favour of the Sarba Siksha Abhijan Mission on 18.12.20 08 pursuant to which the Deputy Commissioner vide communication dated 24.12.2008 informed the District Elementary Officer to the needful in that regard. It is a lso the contention of the respondent No. 5 that after getting the allotment of t he said land the contract for construction of the building has been awarded on 2 1.2.2009 and such building is under construction. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since both the petitio ner and the respondent No. 5 were the applicants for settlement of the said land , the authority before deciding to allot the land in favour of the respondent No . 5 ought to have considered the case of the petitioner, which has not been done . The petitioner has not disputed that the allotment of the land in question has a lready been made in favour of the respondent No. 5, which is for greater public interest i.e. for setting up of a school. Public interest will always prevail ov er individual interest. The prayer of the petitioner for settlement of the land is for his own interest. The authority has given the preference for settlement o f the land for setting up a school. In any case, after the allotment of the land is made the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted more so when the order of allotment has not been cha llenged before this Court by the petitioner. In view of the above, the relief prayed by the petitioner cannot be granted. The petitioner may, however, approach the authority concerned for settlement of any other land, if so advised, subject to the provisions contained in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No cost.