1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 3821 OF 2006 Bapurao s/o. Vithalrao Rodi - - - - Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others. - - Respondents Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Shri B. V. Wagh, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondents Nos. 1 to 4, 5A and 5B. Shri M. B. Kale, Advocate for respondent No.5-C. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 22nd September 2009 PER COURT: 1. It is the contention of the petitioner that though the land in question belonged to the petitioner and was also in possession of the petitioner, compensation was paid to the respondent No.5. On the contrary, it is the contention of the respondent No.5 that the land for which compensation has been received by respondent No. 5 belonged to him and it had come to their share in the partition. 2 2. Since present petition arises out of disputed questions of facts for which it would be necessary to lead the evidence, we are not inclined to entertain present petition in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petition is dismissed. 3. If the parties so desire, they may take recourse to the appropriate remedies under the civil law. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/wp382106