The existence of alternative legal remedies under Section 307(5) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act precludes the need for writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

• ''(i) It is therefore, prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and this Hon'ble Court may kindly To direct the respondents to enquire into the matter and remove the encroachment from Government Land bearing survey No. 136/1 situated at Kabitkhedi, Indore and stop the colonizer from raising any construction upon the government garden land reserved for the garden only.

• (ii) That, the enquiry may kindly be directed to be done under the observation of this Hon'ble High Court and a separate criminal proceeding may kindly be directed to be initiated against encroacher/illegal occupier.

• (iii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondents to stop all the illegal encroachment and they may further be directed to comply with the order passed by Hon'ble High Court in the case of Gram Panchayat Dhoma versus State of M.P. in writ petition no. 7865/2021.''

2. Shri Aniket Naik, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any encroachment and seeking removal or alteration of any building, he is having remedy to approach the District Court under Section 307 (5) of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (which shall be referred herein after as “Act, 1956”). The Full Bench of this Court in Case of Dilip Kaushal and another Vs. State of M.P. and others 2008 (3) JLJ 171 has held that under Section 307 (5) of the Act, 1956 the word ‘any other person’ includes all persons other than a corporation.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

4. As per Section 307 of the Act, 1956, if any building is erected or re- erected in contravention of any town planning scheme mentioned under Section 291 or any bye-laws, the Commissioner without prejudice to his right may order to remove the construction after giving notice to such person. Sub-section 5 of Section 307 of the Act, 1956 is another notwithstanding clause whereby Corporation or any person may apply to District Court for an injunction for the removal or alteration of any building on the ground that it contravenes any provisions of this Act or the bye-laws made thereunder. The word 'building' is defined under Section 5(7) of the Act, 1956 and according to which building includes a house, outhouse, shed, hut, bricks, and also includes verandahs, walls, compound walls, and fencing but does not include a tent or a temporary shed erected on ceremonial or festive occasions, therefore, even if the wall has been constructed for the encroachment over the Government Land or fencing has been erected that will come under the definition of building and for which remedy is available under Section 307 (5) of Act, 1956 to any person or Corporation to approach the Civil Court. Encroachment over the Government Land by any person is a disputed question of fact which requires evidence as well as spot inspection under order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. before giving any findings, therefore, it is not a case where the petitioners are remedy less hence, they can be permitted to raise the issue by way of Public Interest Litigation.

5. In view of aforesaid and in the light of the decision of the Full Bench in case of Dilip Kaushal (supra), this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is relegated to avail the remedy, in accordance with law, if so advised.