1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5860 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2286 OF 2009 Prabhakar D. Bhanase ...Petitioners. v. The Municipal Commissioner, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.Uday Warunjikar, adv. For the Petitioners. Mr.K.V.Saste, adv. For the Respondent No.1. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for the Respondent No.2. Mr.S.V.Sadavarte, for the applicant in C.A.2286/09. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 12th November , 2009 P.C. 1 It is the case of the petitioner that he has agreement to sell with the original property owner. That property owner had applied for development of the property as per the sanction plan. That has been sanctioned. Petitioner challenges the sanction of the said development plan. 2 Petitioner had filed objection before the Commissioner against the sanction of the development plan which was rejected. 2 3 In our opinion, the Commissioner acted within jurisdiction in sanctioning the development plan in favour of the owner of the property. The petitioner’s interest in the property can only be established by taking re-course for specific performance in the Civil Court. 4 In the light of that, this is not a fit case for us to exercise our extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Petitioner may pursue whatever remedy he has in law for specific performance of the contract if in law he has such a remedy available. 5 With the above observations, the petition stands dismissed. 6 As the petition itself is dismissed, civil application taken out by the owner does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)