IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPEALLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No. 7648 of 2009 Chandrakala Babasaheb Bhosale ... Petitioner V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents ... Mr. S.D. Hiwarekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr. V.D. Rakh, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 15th December, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the land acquisition proceedings Award was passed jointly in the name of petitioner and one Vilas Ambadas Waghmare, who according to the petitioner is not the owner of the acquired land. The petitioner made reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, which is forwarded to the Civil Court, and the matter is pending before the Civil Court. The application filed before the Civil Court for making said Vilas Ambadas Waghmare as party to the proceedings, came to be rejected, ( 2 ) against which the writ petition is filed before the learned Single Judge of this Court, in which the notices are issued. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no other remedy than to approach this Court for getting the amount granted towards land acquisition and disbursed to Vilas Ambadas Waghmare, as in view of the corrected 7/12 extract, it is clear that the petitioner was and is owner of the acquired land.. 3. In exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction and in the facts of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The question of disputed facts arise in the matter. The order of trial Court, according to the learned counsel, is questioned in the Writ Petition, pending before the Single Judge of this Court. Even otherwise, the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy available for redressal of his grievance. For all these reasons, the petition is dismissed. All questions are kept open. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) srm/wp/7648/09