1 mss OSWP+325 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 325 OF 2010 MOHAMMAD YUSUF NAGORI .. PETITIONER Vs. THE BEST UNDERTAKING & ANR. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S. E. Kazi for the petitioners Ms. Geeta Shastri,AGP CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 20/9/2010 P.C. In short the case of the petitioner is that respondent 1 acquired the land in question allegedly belonging to the petitioner’s grandfather, by giving notice to the people of the area for construction of a BEST Depot. The Depot was constructed but the petitioner’s grandfather as well as 75 persons of the area were not rehabilitated and no compensation was given to them It is stated in the petition that petitioner’s grandfather was in possession of a room at Kurla being Room No. 17, situated at Alidabad 2 mss OSWP+325 Estate in Kurla area. The name of the petitioner’s grandfather is not given in the petition. 2. A detailed affidavit is filed by Shri Prasad B. Ukrde, Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) No. 7 in which it is stated that the award was passed on 7/6/1985 and after declaration of the award the S.L.A.O. issued intimation under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to all persons who were interested and whose names were mentioned in the award for payment of compensation and accordingly the compensation was paid. It is further stated that in the award name of Mohammed Yusuf Mohammed Shafi is not mentioned as being entitled to shifting charges or alternate accommodation. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs us that Mohammad Yusuf Nagori the present petitioner is Mohammed Yusuf Mohammed Shafi. In view of this affidavit the question whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation at all is a disputed question of fact. It is not possible for us to deal with it in our writ jurisdiction. 3. Needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to adopt appropriate remedy, if he so desires. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 3. 3 mss OSWP+325 4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (R. V. MORE, J.)