Judgment :- S.A. BOBDE, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioners have approached this court interalia for a direction to take action against respondent no.7 - Jejani Pulp & Paper Mills Old Wadsa Taluka Wadsa, District Gadchiroli. Here the petitioners have also sought a direction for suspension of registration of respondent no.7 and a direction to respondent no. 8 – NEERI to submit a report to this court. 3. The petitioners are holding agricultural lands in the vicinity of the respondent - Pulp & Paper Mills. According to the petitioners, effluent from the Mill is seeping from the ground water into the lands of the petitioners which have rendered their lands infertile because of pollution. Respondent no.7 however, disputes the very location of the petitioners' land in the proximity of the respondent no.7's Pulp & Paper Mills. According to respondent entire land surrounding Pulp & Paper Mill is owned by respondent no.7 and there is a canal on the border. According to the respondents after the canal, lands of the petitioners are located and there is no chance of the pollutants seeping in the soil. 4. According to Shri Bhangde, learned senior counsel for respondent no.7, the respondent no.7 has taken steps to curtail effluents from the plant and there is no seepage whatsoever. Learned counsel for the petitioners has however, disputed this position. The learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to show if the seepage continues though the respondent claims that he has stopped the outflow of effluents. However, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Tahsildar initially gave a report stating that the pollutants are entering in the field of the petitioners, the Tahsildar is not inclined to give a fresh panchnama pointing out whether the pollution has stopped. Learned counsel for the Tahsildar denies this. 6. Shri Kapgate, learned counsel for the petitioners however, relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1998)2 SCC 601 [Bhavani River ..vs.. Sakthi Sugars Ltd., wherein the Apex Court directed closure of the operation of the industry. Learned counsel urged this court to do the same. However, we find from the decision that the Pollution Control Board had accepted and stated that seepage from the unlined lagoons in which effluent has been stored joins the drain and ultimately reaches River Bhavani thereby polluting the river water. Learned counsel urged this court to do the same. However, we find from the decision that the Pollution Control Board had accepted and stated that seepage from the unlined lagoons in which effluent has been stored joins the drain and ultimately reaches River Bhavani thereby polluting the river water. We do not find any such report in the present case. Having considered the matter and having noticed the dispute on facts, we are not inclined to go into the matter in exercise of our writ jurisdiction. We consider it appropriate that the matter be decided by the Civil Court. 7. Shri Kapgate, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the meanwhile the petitioners fields are likely to be wasted. If that is so, it is open for the petitioners to move an application for temporary injunction which will be decided by the Civil Court. 8. We may notice that in the present case there is an affidavit of the Regional Officer of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. In the affidavit dated 23.1.2010, vide paragraph 1, (v), (c) & (f) it is stated that there were no seepages observed during the visit. There was no bye-pass of any effluent outside the factory premises during the visit. This is also disputed on behalf of the petitioners, on the basis of photographs presented by the Board today. However, same being disputed question, needs to be settled by the Civil Court. The claim for compensation will also require clear and cogent evidence for the court after facts are established. 9. All in all we find that though the problem faced by the petitioners is serious and requires through investigation into the facts, the nature of the dispute raised in this petition right from the location of the land, the measures that are allegedly already taken by respondent no.7 and the flow of the effluents seeping into ground water streams, involves several disputed questions of facts, which we are not inclined to go into in this petition. 10. We accordingly dismiss the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court as may be advised in accordance with law.