WP(C) 1954/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. U. Bhyan, the learned counsel for the petition er as well as Mrs. V.L. Singh, the learned State Counsel appearing for the respo ndents. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer:- In the premises aforesaid it is prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to ad mit this application, call for the records of the case and issue a Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus sh all not be issued directing the Respondents to extend the period of lease grante d for the period 2006-08 in the name of Baburam Namasudra since deceased to be s ubstituted by his wife the present petitioner for a further period of two years or in the alternative, to refund the whole amount deposited against the said Mah al i.e. Soulmari Sand and Gravel Mahal and further to pay compensation amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- (five lakhs) only for violation of the terms of agreement refe rred to above and upon cause or causes being shown if any and after hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or pass such further or other o rders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper. An order of settlement dated 16-08-2006 was passed by th e respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner’s husband Baburam Namasudra settli ng the Soulmari Sand and Gravel Mahal for the period 2006-08 at the bid value of Rs.33,76,791/-. The petitioner’s husband thereafter, stated to have deposited a sum of Rs.6,43,510/- towards the security deposit and the first kist money etc . with the respondent No.3 and consequently the lease agreement was executed on 29-08-2006. According to the petitioner, though in the agreement the total leng th of the river course within the mahal area was 10 Kms., the same was subsequen tly reduced by the respondents to 3 Kms., thereby depriving the petitioner’s hus band from extracting the agreed quantity of sand and gravel from the Mahal in qu estion, for which the writ proceeding being WP(C) No.6161/2006 was earlier filed , which has subsequently been dismissed as infructuous in view of the death of t he settlement holders, i.e. the petitioner’s husband, who died on 24-08-2007. Af ter the death of the petitioner’s husband, a representation was filed by the pre sent petitioner on 05-05-2008 before the Divisional Forest Officer, respondent N o.3, for extension of the lease period so as to enable the petitioner to extract the remaining quantity of sand and gravel or to refund the 2nd kist money, whic h stated to have been deposited by the petitioner’s husband, for not being able to extract the sand and gravel. According to the petitioner, since such represen tation has not been disposed of by the authorities till date, she had no alterna tive but to approach this Court in the present proceeding. Since the period of lease has long been over, which was for the period from 2006-08, there is no question of directing the respondents t o extend the period of lease so as to enable the petitioner, who is not the leas e holder to extract the sand and gravel stated to have not been extracted by the petitioner’s husband due to reduction of area of operation of the mahal in ques tion. The prayer for payment of compensation made in the present writ petition c annot also be entertained in the writ proceeding, as it requires recording of ev idence and the petitioner is to demonstrate by adducing evidence that she has su ffered loss for the act of the respondents. Such prayer for payment of compensa tion, therefore, in a writ proceeding cannot appropriately be decided and allowe d. The only prayer left for consideration, in view of the a bove, is for refund of the kist money proportionate to the alleged non extractio n of the sand and gravel, for which the petitioner has also filed a representati on before the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-3. The said representation stated t o have not been disposed of till date. Mrs. VL Sigh, the learned State Counsel appearing for th e respondent No.3 has submitted that if the representation has not been disposed of till date, the same shall definitely be disposed of by the Divisional Forest Officer in accordance with law. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dispo sed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to dispose of the representation dated 05-05-2008 filed by the petitioner (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) withi n a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the orde r passed today alongwith the copy of the writ petition and the annexures appende d thereto, relating to the prayer of the petitioner for refund of the kist money , as indicated above. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost.