1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3112 OF 2009 Premraj s/o Chandrabhan Gupta, R/o-Godawari Colony, Paithan, Tq-Paithan, Dist-Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through The Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The District Collector, Aurangabad, 3) The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Paithan, Dist-Aurangabad, 4) The Executive Engineer, Jaikwadi Irrigation Department No.3, Beed. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.R.J. Godbole Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos 1 to 3. Shri.S.S. Thombre Advocate for Respondent No.4. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.U. CHANDWAL, JJ. DATE : 3RD DECEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner approaches this Court seeking direction to the Collector to decide representations filed by him and to take appropriate steps to permanently restrain the respondents, its officers, executive engineer, Jaikwadi Project No.III and any of the Government contractors, their agents or persons from entering into the Petitioner's field at land Gut No.14 at village Talewadi, Tq-Paithan, Dist-Aurangabad. According to the Petitioner, unauthorizedly the murrum was excavated from the Petitioner's land by Respondent No.4. The Petitioner was deprived of his right to cultivate agricultural land. Representation thereafter was filed to the Collector. 3 3. Affidavit in reply is filed by Mr. Keshav Netake, Tahsildar, Paithan, on behalf of Respondent No.3. The deponent submitted that although the contractor appointed by the Respondent No.4 had extracted murrum from the Petitioner's land, liability for payment of royalty charges is fixed on Irrigation Department for extraction of minor minerals for estimated quantity of 12,526 brass. It is further stated that Respondent No.4 has recovered royalty amount to the extent of Rs.1,81,597/- (Rs.One Lakh Eighty One Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Seven only) from the bills of the contractors but has failed to submit any permission for such excavation. Notice dated 25th June, 2009 was issued to Respondent No. 4 calling explanation for illegal excavation along with penalty. 4. The Respondent No.4 has filed affidavit in reply and has disputed the facts stated by the Petitioner and has refuted the allegations made 4 against Respondent No.4 and its authorities. 5. This Court, in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, cannot entertain an issue attracting disputed questions of facts. In such a situation, for redressal of grievances, the party is entitled to approach the Civil Court for claiming appropriate relief. In the facts of the present case, as the affidavit in reply is already filed on behalf of the State, the State authorities may take appropriate steps in accordance with law. In case the Petitioner is not satisfied with the steps taken by the State authorities, the Petitioner is at liberty to resort to alternate forum for redressal of his grievances. All issues are kept open. 6. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/DEC09/wp3112.09