JUDGMENT H.R. Krishnan, J. This is an appeal on leave from the acquittal by the learned Additional District Magistrate of the Respondent u/s 112(7) of the M.B. Municipalities Act, 1954 for the alleged making on the wall of his house an external alteration by opening a door without permission of the Municipality. The learned Magistrate has acquitted the Respondent on the ground that the opening of the door is not an external alteration and that simply because the Panchas of a Masjid have their own differences with the Respondent in regard to the land on which the door opens, the municipality cannot take action u/s 112 of the Act. The entire controversy centres round whether the opening of a door in a wall that gives out on land other than public land is an external alteration, and secondly, whether that section can be invoked by the municipality where there is a claim by another private individual and not by itself to the land on which such door opens. The Respondent has a house surrounded by a strip of land and itself enclosed in a compound wall. Between the external wall concerned and the public road, there is this strip of land which is not public land at any rate, that is to say, land either owned or controlled by the municipality for the use or confort or safety of the public in general. That strip is private-owned land cut in regard to the ownership, there is a dispute between the Respondent on the one side and certain trustees or managers of the Masjid apparently situated nearby who call themselves "Panchas of the Masjid." The municipality's view was that whenever there is a door opened on a wall which is around a house, the construction is external, whether or not, immediately on the other side of the wall, the land is owned by the same person as owns the house, and is not, in any case, property controlled by the municipality. The Respondent's contention is that the word should be understood with reference to his property; if he has got a continuous piece of property in the centre of which he puts up his house and then opens a door in the wall of the house giving out into his own land, then the alteration is internal because it is within his property. The word 'internal' should not be interpreted with reference not to the single wall or room but to the continuous property owned by the person constructing it. The trial Court takes substantially the same view and feels further that the entire scheme of the sections beginning with Section 108 supports it. Certainly that section is designed to enable the municipality to see that the land in its charge and control is available for the use and safety of the public and is not in any manner encroached upon or otherwise made less available to the public for whose benefit every inch of it is meant. If, on the other hand, the alteration concerned does not affect land owned by or in the charge and control of the Municipality, then it is not their business. It is conceivable that part of the property claimed by the person, who makes the alteration, is also claimed by another private individual but they should settle the matter between themselves without dragging in the municipality. Another aspect of the matter is that in Section 112(1) there is a basic distinction between an alteration on the one hand, and "new erection or addition to an existing building". A new erection or addition can by itself affect the comfort and safety of the public even without encroaching on the public land by obstructing ventilation and traffic safety and the like. Where an alteration is likely to become a nuisance, it is separately provided for in Section 112(1). Similarly if an alteration affects the safety of the foundation of a house and threatens to bring it down on the head of the passers by, then also there is a separate provision; but where the alteration is neither a nuisance nor a danger, but is just an alteration and not of the kind set out in the latter part of that Sub-section, all that we are called upon to see is whether it is external or internal. The municipality has nothing to do with it unless of course it comes under any other objectionable heading in that section. In this connection, the Appellant has referred to the ruling reported in Municipal Committee, Mandsaur v. Ahmadkhan alias Chotekhan 1960 MPLJ 949 . The municipality has nothing to do with it unless of course it comes under any other objectionable heading in that section. In this connection, the Appellant has referred to the ruling reported in Municipal Committee, Mandsaur v. Ahmadkhan alias Chotekhan 1960 MPLJ 949 . There it was held that Section 112 is wider than Section 108 and further that the Municipality is competent to control the building by an owner on his own land. But it is difficult to see what bearing it has on whether a particular alteration is internal or external Similarly in Engineer & Land Acquisition Officer v. Hakimuddin 1962 MPLJ 313 : AIR 1962 MP 54 : 1961 JLJ 1948, the question was whether a gallary, or a spread of cement slab with bars around it, was unauthorised construction or not. That too is not the position here. The result is that the appeal is found to be without substance and is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed