JUDGMENT Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. - The first petitioner was leased 25 acres of land under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in October, 1996 in an area on the Eastern Metropolitan Bypass. The petitioner developed the land by expanding substantial resources. Part of this property is led out for marriage and other ceremonial purposes and is known as the 'P.C. Chandra Garden'. The petitioners were subsequently made aware that an elevated Metro Railway track would pass in front of the leasehold premises of the petitioners and that Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL) / respondent nos. 1-3 would execute the project. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) granted an NOC to RVNL for using KMC land for construction of the Metro Railway from New Garia to Airport. RVNL was required to excavate a portion of the slope of the leasehold premises of the petitioners adjoining the EM Bypass and accordingly approached the petitioners for permission to excavate the land partition for constructing the piers and viaducts for the Metro Railway. 2. The petitioners seek a direction on RVNL to restore the slopes in the petitioners leasehold property to its original condition at RVNL's costs or through the respondent no. 4/Gammon India Limited, who was given the task of executing the project for RVNL. 3. The urgent need for restoration of the slopes of the petitioners' property is reflected from the photographs annexed to the writ petition. Photographs taken of the slopes prior to commencement of the construction work show un-damaged slopes with trees and plants beautifying the area. Photographs taken after commencement of the construction work portray a different picture. The slopes have been excavated with the under laying black soil being exposed to public view. The aesthetics of the green slopes with plants has been replaced by broken and corrugated slopes. 4. The only question before the Court is whether RVNL through Gammon can be called upon to restore the slopes to their original condition. 5. By a letter dated 18th February, 2013, RVNL brought the inevitable consequences of cutting of the slopes to the notice of the petitioners. The last paragraph of the letter shows that RVNL assured that the cutting of the P.C. Chandra Green Project area will be protected by subsequent pitching work by RVNL. 5. By a letter dated 18th February, 2013, RVNL brought the inevitable consequences of cutting of the slopes to the notice of the petitioners. The last paragraph of the letter shows that RVNL assured that the cutting of the P.C. Chandra Green Project area will be protected by subsequent pitching work by RVNL. The intention of RVNL to do the pitching work is reiterated in a mail dated 20th January, 2014 where the necessary protection was also assured in the cutting zone. The stand taken by RVNL in terms of protecting the land which was cut-away for construction of Metro Railway, also appears from other correspondences between the parties from October, 2013 to January, 2014. The attachments in the mail of 20th January, 2014 showing cross-section of piers and proposed diversion in front of P.C. Chandra Garden also contains a note with a written undertaking for temporary protection of the area by sand bag pitching and permanent protection by boulder pitching. 6. The material before this Court reflects that RVNL gave several assurances, through written documents, that it would undertake necessary protection for the cutting zone of both temporary and permanent nature in the form of sand bag and boulder pitching. 7. The subsequent work undertaken by RVNL however resulted in extensive damage to the slopes of the petitioner's land along the service road off EM Bypass which is evident from the photographs annexed to the writ petition. Admittedly, the work of laying piers and viaduct was completed in 2020. RVNL did not however undertake any temporary or permanent pitching work as promised in its letters. 8. The defence taken by RVNL of disputed question of facts and the petitioners' encroachment on public land cannot be countenanced since RVNL did not raise these issues to the petitioners at the relevant point of time. The submission of learned counsel appearing for RVNL that the petitioners have encroached on the land or have failed to produce any plan of the land to ascertain the elevation of the slope is not relevant to the issue at hand. These points can at best be taken by KMC since the land was leased by KMC to the petitioners. Contrary to the submissions made on behalf of the RVNL, counsel appearing for KMC and KMDA have submitted before the Court that they have nothing to do with the dispute between the petitioners and RVNL. These points can at best be taken by KMC since the land was leased by KMC to the petitioners. Contrary to the submissions made on behalf of the RVNL, counsel appearing for KMC and KMDA have submitted before the Court that they have nothing to do with the dispute between the petitioners and RVNL. Significantly, KMC has not alleged any encroachment by the petitioners on KMC land. 9. Further, the letter relied on by RVNL of 16th September, 2013 from RVNL to the petitioners deals with the allegation of the petitioner dumping additional earth over the concerned land and the consequent issue of ingress and egress of the petitioners. The letter does not deal with any impediment on RVNL for executing the restoration work as promised by RVNL in letters to the petitioners. 10. The issue is simply a matter of holding RVNL to its promise and undertaking to make good the loss and damage suffered by the petitioners. The extent of damage is clearly visible from the photographs annexed to the writ petition and reflects a striking difference in the visible appearance of the slopes before and after construction work undertaken by RVNL. RVNL has admittedly not kept its promise of pitching work for restoring the slopes with the help of sand bags and boulders. RVNL cannot be permitted to resile from its position through technical pleas like disputed question of facts. 11. This Court is of the view that the express promise and undertaking given by RVNL in several letters resolves the issue of facts allegedly being disputed. In any event, there is no absolute bar on a Writ Court dealing with contested factual issues if the circumstances call for interference. 12. Being of the view that RVNL cannot be permitted to change its position after completing the construction work in 2020 and taking advantage of the fact that the petitioners did not object to such construction work being for the larger public benefit, WPA 21100 of 2022 is disposed of with a direction on RVNL and Gammon to restore the slopes in the property of the petitioners to its original condition at RVNL's cost either by itself or through Gammon. RVNL is directed to start the restoration work within eight weeks from today and restore the area to its earlier visibly aesthetic shape and form. RVNL is directed to start the restoration work within eight weeks from today and restore the area to its earlier visibly aesthetic shape and form. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for be supplied to the parties upon fulfillment of requisite formalities.