1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 249/2007 (Smt.Chandrakala Nankchandra Agrawal & another VERSUS The Additional Chief Secretary, Town Planning Deptt. & another ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Parsodkar, counsel for the R-2. Mr. Gordey, counsel for the R-3. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 15, 2008. Heard. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is claiming that the construction undertaken by the petitioner is on the basis of plan sanctioned by the authorities dated 08.04.1959, and therefore, it is contended that the stand taken by the respondent that the construction is de hors of the sanctioned plan is not justified. Mr. Parsodkar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 Corporation, has specifically stated that after due and thorough verification of the record of the Nagpur Improvement Trust, it is noticed that no sanction order is available on record to show that the plan which is annexed by the petitioner along with the writ petition was 2 Sanctioned. On the other hand, it was never sanctioned by the Nagpur Improvement Trust nor there is any document to show that there is any sanction as such granted by the authority on 08.04.1959. These facts are also mentioned in the written submissions filed by respondent no.2 on oath. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, the issue involved in this petition pertains to the disputed question of fact, and therefore, it is difficult for us to show indulgence in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to pursue alternate remedy, if any, available in law. Interim order stands vacated. JUDGE JUDGE APTE