1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3936 OF 2007 1 Ramchandra Dattatraya Kulkarni deceased through L.R.s 1-A] Umesh s/o. Ramchandra Kulkarni, age 38 years, occ. agriculture and others. - - - Petitioners versus 1 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and others. - - Respondents Shri V. J. Dixit, Senior Advocate for petitioners. Shri Umakant Patil, A. G. P. for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Shri L. V. Sangit, Advocae for respondent No.3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 8th June, 2009. ORAL ORDER [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Heard. 2. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Dixit submits that against the order passed by Division Bench [Coram: N.V. Dabholkar and M.G. Gaikwad, 2 JJ.] of this Court on 10th April 2006 in Writ Petition No. 8153 of 2005, Special Leave Petition was preferred which came to be dismissed on 19-3-2007. 3. We had called relevant papers in Writ Petition No. 8153 of 2005. Petitioners therein, who had filed present petition, had prayed following reliefs - (A) Call for the Record and Proceedings in order to examine the legality, validity and propriety of the inaction of respondents. (B) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a direction in the nature directing the respondent No.2 to make the payment of compensation as per Exhibit E. (C) Direct the respondent No.2, pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, to make the payment of compensation as per Exhibit E. Learned A.G.P. Shri Umakant Patil submits that by a communication dated 25-1-2006, Assistant Charity Commissioner had already held that the property is of Shri Changdeo Maharaj Temple Devsthan Trust. In the said communication, list of 9 Trustees is also mentioned. Trustees belong to Kulkarni family. Learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader places reliance on the Government Resolution dated 26th June 2006, based on which, it was submitted that 50 per cent of the amount would be 3 disbursed to the occupants/ teanants, etc. and remaining 50 per cent would be disbursed to the temple trust. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in the facts of the case, they reserve their right to challenge the said Government Resolution. The petitioners are at liberty to do so. 4 Learned A.G.P., on instructions, however, submits that 50 per cent of the amount is already disbursed to the temple Trust, which fact is disputed by the petitioner and the remaining amount has in fact already been received by the occupants of the property i.e. members of Kulkarni family. 5 Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that petition is required to be considered now and entertain disputed questions of facts. We find prima facie that the object of the Government Resolution is loudable so that property of the temple trust could be maintained by managing trustee attached to trust. 6. We are not inclined to entertain the present petition in the extta ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Petition is dismissed. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] pnk/wp393607 pnk/wp393607