ORDER : Petitioners are challenging the action of Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur demolishing the temporary construction of the petitioners on 28th November, 1999 whereupon the petitioners had carrying on business of Star Exhibition; petitioners pray for restoration of possession on the exhibition site admeasuring 28,000 square feet; alternatively directions to the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to provide alternate site to the petitioners and also to compensate them. It is not in dispute that the land in question is owned by Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur; initially the land in question was leased out by the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur to the erstwhile coronation club which is succeeded by Jabalpur Club; land is held by Jabalpur club on certain terms and conditions as mentioned in the lease deed. 2. Petitioners submit that petitioners had been carrying on their business in temporary constructed accommodation over the land taken on lease initially by Shikshit Berojgar Sangh and later on by Adarsh Anusuchit Jati and Janjati Kalyan Samiti; the respondents in collusion forcibly took the possession of the land; petitioner/society has been paying yearly rent of Rs. 20,000/- to the lessor, namely, Jabalpur Club; the entire area was buldozed and the temporary constructions were removed in utter violation of law; petitioners were initially members of Shikshit Berojgar Sangh which started exhibition on the said land in the year 1981-82 or so; later on in the year 1985 respondent No. 4 Jabalpur Club had executed an agreement in favour of Rakesh Basediya and Dayaram Sonkar petitioner No. 5 and 6 who were the office bearers of said Shikshit Berojgar Sangh; lease deed P/2 was executed on 30th April, 1985; it was executed by Shri Kahendra Singh, Manager of the Jabalpur Club in their favour. It was for the period of 8 years, that is up to 31-12-1993. It was agreed that Rs. 20,000/- shall be the yearly rent and will be increased by 10% every year; yearly rent shall be payable by party No. 2 in January of each year to party No. 1 that is Jabalpur Club. 3. Petitioners further alleged that District Magistrate, Jabalpur used to give the permission for exhibition; permissions are placed on record as Annexures P/3 to P/7 which reflect that District Magistrate on January 27th,1984 granted permission Annexure P/3 for the period 15-2-1984 to 15-7-1984 for a period of five months. 3. Petitioners further alleged that District Magistrate, Jabalpur used to give the permission for exhibition; permissions are placed on record as Annexures P/3 to P/7 which reflect that District Magistrate on January 27th,1984 granted permission Annexure P/3 for the period 15-2-1984 to 15-7-1984 for a period of five months. P/4 is another permission granted by District Magistrate, Jabalpur for the period February to July, 1986. P/5 permission is for the period 10-3- 1987 to 15-7-1987. P/6 is the extension of permission for the period 16-7-1987 to 16-8-1987. P/7 is the permission for the period 15-3-1988 to 15-9-1988. For organising the exhibition in the relevant periods, it appears that temporary water connections were also applied for by the petitioners as apparent from P/8, P/9 and P/10 in the year 1985 to 1987. Temporary electricity connections were also obtained in the year 1983 to 1985 as reflected from P/11 to P/18. A writ petition M. P. No. 3116/1988 was filed by Bhagwandas Sen and four others. In the writ petition, this Court confined its decision to the validity of the notice P/21 in MP No. 3116/1988; which notice was issued by the Municipal Corporation under section 323 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 which was regarding encroachment on public passage and this Court came to the conclusion that petitioners have trespassed over the passage, therefore, the petitioners were directed to vacate this passage within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order or it will be open to the Municipal Corporation to remove the petitioners in accordance with law. There was some other litigation also CS No. 33-A/92 and CS No. 383-A/1994; in spite of aforesaid facts, the respondent/Municipal Corporation got pasted a notice (Annexure P/31) on the premises of the exhibition purported to be under sections 304,322 and 323 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act directing the petitioners to appear before the Municipal Corporation on 27-11-1999. Petitioners prayed for one week's time to file reply; petitioner No. 1 was orally informed to appear on 4-12-1999. Several newspapers reports were published to the effect that there was scam committed by the petitioners and Jabalpur Club of usurping land of several crores which is owned by Municipal Corporation. 4. After giving the notice on 27-11-1999, on the next very day, that is, on 28-11-1999 number of buldozers and police officers started buldozing the shops of the petitioners. Several newspapers reports were published to the effect that there was scam committed by the petitioners and Jabalpur Club of usurping land of several crores which is owned by Municipal Corporation. 4. After giving the notice on 27-11-1999, on the next very day, that is, on 28-11-1999 number of buldozers and police officers started buldozing the shops of the petitioners. Police report was lodged; damage of several crores was caused; revenue inspector reported that buldozing took place, as alleged, the exhibition has been demolished by the Municipal Corporation; petitioners assess the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,05,32,000/-. Petitioners further aver that by the side of the petitioners' shop, some persons had taken the land from Jabalpur Club; they were also uprooted by respondents 2 and 3 Municipal Corporation; they have been provided alternate accommodation. 5. Respondent/Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur has taken the objection that writ petition is not maintainable as the writ petition involves investigation into highly disputed questions of facts; remedy of the petitioners lies in approaching the common law court by filing a civil suit and infact the petitioners had filed civil suit in the Court of 15th Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur C. S. No. 21-A/2000 substantially claiming the same reliefs as have been claimed in the present writ petition. Petitioners' have also prayed for interim injunction in civil suit. Learned Civil Judge Class II rejected the prayer for interim injunction on 10-4-2000 as per Annexure R-2/1. Petitioners preferred an appeal M. A. No. 50/2000 which was dismissed by the lower appellate court on 14-10-2000 as per order Annexure R-2/2. Petitioners have suppressed material fact and have suggested falsely in para 10 that the matter regarding the petition is not pending in any court of law or authority or tribunal. It is further pointed out that in all three civil suits were filed; 21-A/2000 was filed by petitioners No. 5 and 6 Dayaram Sonkar and Rakesh Basediya; it was filed on 27-11-1999 for the relief of permanent injunction and for non-dismentling the temporary constructions made by the plaintiffs. It is further pointed out that in all three civil suits were filed; 21-A/2000 was filed by petitioners No. 5 and 6 Dayaram Sonkar and Rakesh Basediya; it was filed on 27-11-1999 for the relief of permanent injunction and for non-dismentling the temporary constructions made by the plaintiffs. Another civil suit No. 257/2000 was filed by Rajesh Agarwal for mandatory injunction to restore the possession of the accommodation de-lienated in the plaint map with red ink; the cause was shown to have arisen on 30th November, 1999 when demolition was made; another civil suit No. 258-A/2000 was filed by Ramnik Lal Shah vs. Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and its Commissioner for mandatory injunction. Mandatory injunction was claimed to restore possession and dismentling took place as per plaint averment on 30-11-1999. The plaints of these civil suits have been made available during the course of hearing and filing of them and their subsequent withdrawal has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It appears that these civil suits were withdrawn during pendency of the writ petition when the objection was raised by the Municipal Corporation and the Jabalpur Club that the fact of filing civil suits has been suppressed. Civil suits were withdrawn without permission to institute it again by the plaintiffs. 6. It is further contended by Municipal Corporation that Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur is the exclusive owner of the land Plot No. 107 situated in Marhatal (Civil Centre), Jabalpur; the land is situated in the heart of the city and has considerable commercial value; the said land admeasuring 92,352 sq. ft. was leased out by the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur to Coronation Club on February 12th, 1926. The said lease was granted for a period of 30 years which perioed expired on 13-2-1956; it was not renewed. On 28-1-1989, the Administrator of Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur passed a resolution No. 466 whereby a decision was taken to renew the lease granted to Coronation Club for a period of 30 years, that is for 1956 to 1986, and for further period of 30 years with effect from 1986. Lessee was required to surrender 23088 sq.ft. out of 92,352 sq. ft. to the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. Agreement Annexure R-2/3 was arrived at between the parties. Jabalpur Club was required to construct swimming pool, badminton hall, squash court etc. on 42,664 sq. ft. of land. Lessee was required to surrender 23088 sq.ft. out of 92,352 sq. ft. to the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. Agreement Annexure R-2/3 was arrived at between the parties. Jabalpur Club was required to construct swimming pool, badminton hall, squash court etc. on 42,664 sq. ft. of land. It was further stipulated that no part of land leased out to the Jabalpur Club shall be utilised for any other purpose nor shall be sublet to any other person without previous consent of Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. The land was not surrendered to Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Club started construction of commercial complex in the year 1990 when this fact came to the notice of the State Government it passed an order on 21-5-1990 thereby execution of the resolution of the Administrator dated 28-1-1989 and the building permission was suspended as per order R-2/4 dated January 25th, 1990. Permission granted to Jabalpur Club was cancelled by the State Government on 31st August, 1990 as per Annexure R-2/5. Notice was given to the Jabalpur Club to prove that it was a successor of Coronation Club. There is no authority with the Jabalpur Club to exploit the land for commercial purposes. There were unauthorised occupancy on the land leased out by the Municipal Corporation to the Jabalpur Club; said persons had occupied 23,088 sq. ft. of land which was surrendered in favour of Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur as per the agreement. Therefore, the Municipal Corporation initiated the proceedings under sections 304, 322 and 323 of M. P. Municipal Corporation Act for removal of encroachments and unauthorised construction on the land as a sequel to that a notice was given; one of such notice is notice dated 19-11-1999 Annexure R-2/9. After giving adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned officer, respondents removed all encroachments and unauthorised constructions on the land surrendered to if by the lessee Jabalpur Club. Since then, the Municipal Corporation is continuing in the possession of land. Jabalpur Club had failed to provide sporting facility by making necessary construction. On 7-12-1999 it was decided that entire land and building shall vest in the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. Since then, the Municipal Corporation is continuing in the possession of land. Jabalpur Club had failed to provide sporting facility by making necessary construction. On 7-12-1999 it was decided that entire land and building shall vest in the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. Jabalpur Club filed a writ petition before this Court WP No. 5376/99 which was decided by this Court on 13-6-2001 as per order Annexure R-2/12 in which it was held that Jabalpur Club is a successor of Coronation Club; it was the finding given on the basis that State Government had decided that Jabalpur Club is the successor of Coronation Club. Petitioners have no right or interest over the land in question; they have been rightly evicted from the said land. They were encroachers and such encroachers can be removed by invoking powers under sections 304, 322, 323 of M. P. Municipal Corporation Act. No permission was granted by the Municipal Corporation at any point of time to the petitioners. For intermittent period, it appears that District Magistrate granted permission for running exhibition on the land in question; that does not give the right to occupy the land continuously and in perpetuity. The petitioners want to unlawfully grab the land belonging to Municipal Corporation. In the writ petition filed in 1988, this Court held that trespass was committed over the two passages; the Corporation was not a party to civil suits of 1992 and 1994. The petitioners are not entitled for any relief; Corporation further submits that in case the petitioners approach the Corporation for providing an alternative accommodation, the request would be considered and in case suitable accommodation is available, the same shall be allotted to the petitioners along with other eligible persons. 7. Respondent No. 4/ Jabalpur Club in its return disputes that the petitioners are tenant of Jabalpur Club. It is specifically denied that petitioners or anyone of them to be either the tenants or licensee of the premises; the appropriate remedy is the civil court. Petition is belated, filed in June, 2001 whereas encroachments were removed on 28-11-1999; civil suits were filed which were pending in which written statement was filed by the Jabalpur Club denying the tenancy/licensee rights of the petitioners. Injunction was refused. It is further specifically contended that petitioners had never been paying rent to Jabalpur Club whether to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- yearly or any other sum. Injunction was refused. It is further specifically contended that petitioners had never been paying rent to Jabalpur Club whether to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- yearly or any other sum. They forcibly encroached upon the land and they are likely to face a criminal prosecution; matter is under investigation; it was illegal trespass over the land belonging to respondent No. 4 where the Jabalpur Club wanted to establish full fledge gymnasium and other sports activities in public interest. Due to use of illegal force and muscle powers unauthorised constructions were made by the petitioners by which public has been put to severe loss. The writ petition is based on forged documents; legal status of Sangh is denied. It is further mentioned that Manager whose name is shown in Annexure P/2 lease deed purported to be executed by Jabalpur Club; no such Manager existed at any time, nor any Manager had any authority to enter into an agreement of lease, it is a forged document. The original document has not been shown to the Jabalpur Club at any point of time. Document is inadmissible; it is not on proper stamp paper; the petitioners had in different cases filed absolutely different types of agreement copies of three of them are filed as Annexure R-4/3, R-4/4 and R-4/5. The permissions to hold exhibition was for limited period temporary occupation cannot give a right to perfect the possession authorized or unauthorised. No permissions have been placed on record for last several years; water and electricity connections were temporary which show that nature of occupancy was not of permanent nature but for the temporary periods without any right of possession of land. Exhibition was not a routine annual feature and for several years there were brakes; Petitioners are not entitled for restoration of possession or alternate land; land in question is in possession of the Municipal Corporation. 8. Shri N. S. Kale and Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners submit that petitioners were in settled possession of the land in question; they were removed in an unauthorised manner; the only remedy for the Corporation was to file a civil suit to obtain the possession. It is also submitted that this Court need not at all go into the question in what right or manner petitioners had entered into the possession of the land in question. It is also submitted that this Court need not at all go into the question in what right or manner petitioners had entered into the possession of the land in question. This Court should confined its decision to the action taken by the Municipal Corporation which is wholly unauthorised, illegal, arbitrary and is bad in law. No action could be taken under sections 304, 322 and 323 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act. They submitted that an objection being raised about the pendency of the civil suits, those civil suits were withdrawn by the petitioners without permission of filing fresh civil suit it happened during the pendency of the present writ petition. If the writ petition is not entertained, petitioners shall suffer irreparable injury land in case this Court comes to this conclusion that petitioners are not entitled for restoration of possession in the writ petition, for any reason whatsoever, a direction be issued to the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur to allot alternate suitable site as has been offered by the Municipal Corporation in its return as holding of the exhibition is a public purpose for which the Municipal Corporation be directed to allot alternate site. 9. Shri N. C. Jain and Shri R. N. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Jabalpur Club submit that petitioners are rank trespassers; they have forged documents of lease P/2 which was never executed by Jabalpur Club; factum of filing of civil suits was suppressed and it was suggested falsely that no case was pending with respect to the subject matter; thus it is a case of suppressio-veri and suggestio-falsi. It is further stated that the petitioners have never deposited even a penny muchless Rs. 20,000/- or any amount yearly to the Jabalpur Club at any point of time; an application was filed by the Jabalpur Club seeking the production of the original lease deed P/2 which has not been produced and it is stated by learned counsel for petitioners Shri N. S. Kale at bar that the original lease deed is not available, when dismentling took place it was lost. 10. 10. Shri Brian D'Silva, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submits that Municipal Corporation has taken the action under sections 304, 322 and 323 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act which is the mode prescribed by the law; it cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable in any manner; land is admittedly owned by Municipal Corporation and it has never authorised the petitioners nor authorised Jabalpur Club at any point of time to induct the petitioners in any manner and they were not inducted by Jabalpur Club also as apparent from the return filed by the Jabalpur Club, thus, petitioners are not entitled for restoration of possession from original owner of the property. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Corporation that with respect to the alternative relief of providing alternate accommodation, the petitioners have un-necessarily rushed to this Court, Corporation's attitude is already reflected in the return, thus the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Before I proceed to consider various submission raised at bar, it be noticed that it is not disputed that the land is owned by Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. The petitioners were served with the notice under sections 304, 322 and 323 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act for taking possession; the petitioners' possession was never authorised by the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. Jabalpur Club had no legal right to part with the possession to the petitioners. The Jabalpur Club/respondent No. 4 has specifically denied that at any point of time any lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioners or Shikshit Berojgar Sangh. It has also been denied that Kahendra Singh was at any point of time was Manager of Jabalpur Club. It is also contended that Jabalpur Club never authorised anybody to execute any lease deed. The petitioners bases the claim on the execution of Annexure P/2; genuineness of which is seriously questioned by Jabalpur Club and it is alleged to be a forged document; an application for production of the original lease deed has been filed. Learned counsel for petitioners Shri N. S. Kale has stated that original is not available; hence it cannot be produced. There are certain discrepancies in the lease deed filed by the respondent No. 4 which have been obtained from the various civil suits; these lease deeds were filed by the petitioners in the civil court in the civil suits. 12. Learned counsel for petitioners Shri N. S. Kale has stated that original is not available; hence it cannot be produced. There are certain discrepancies in the lease deed filed by the respondent No. 4 which have been obtained from the various civil suits; these lease deeds were filed by the petitioners in the civil court in the civil suits. 12. Challenging the impugned action three civil suits were filed; injunction was sought which was declined by the trial Court; misc. first appeals were preferred which were dismissed by the Addl. District Judge Court; failing in attempt to obtain the injunction, present writ petition was filed without disclosing the fact by same set of plaintiffs and other persons that civil suits were filed; injunction was refused and suits were pending before the civil court; when it was brought to the notice of this Court, the civil suits were withdrawn without seeking the permission to file a fresh civil suit or other proceedings. 13. In the instant writ petition this question cannot be gone into whether the lease deed P/2 was executed in favour of petitioners No. 5 and 6 Rakesh Basediya and Dayaram Sonkar by respondent No. 4 Jabalpur Club. It is a disputed question of fact and this Court is not competent to decide the factum of lease deed and its due execution; authority of Kahendra Singh to execute such a lease deed in favour of petitioners No. 5 and 6 has also been disputed and it has been alleged to be forged document. 14. The fact that any premium under the lease was paid at any point of time to Jabalpur Club/respondent No. 4 by the petitioners has been seriously disputed. It has been clearly averred that no premium whatsoever was paid at any point of time to Jabalpur Club. No receipt has been filed by the petitioners evincing payment of any premium/rent under the lease. 15. Petitioners had filed three civil suits and failed to obtain the injunction and the same relief was claimed in the civil suits. This fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition as such writ petition suffers with the suppression of material fact and suggestion of false fact that no matter was pending in any other court. 15. Petitioners had filed three civil suits and failed to obtain the injunction and the same relief was claimed in the civil suits. This fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition as such writ petition suffers with the suppression of material fact and suggestion of false fact that no matter was pending in any other court. At that time civil suits were pending, thus, the petitioners have not come to this Court with the clean hands; they are guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. 16. Learned counsel for petitioners urged that this Court should not examine any other fact; what was the status of the petitioners and in what capacity they were enjoying the possession since the petitioners were in possession for considerable long time; the action of the Municipal Corporation be struck down only on this ground. I am unable to accept this submission for the reasons mentioned hereinafter. 17. The Municipal Corporation is having the power to remove encroachments under sections 304, 322 and 323 of M. P. Municipal Corporation Act. Notice was issued in the instant case to the petitioners requiring them to vacate the land and remove the trespass. Section 323 gives the power to remove the encroachments on any open space which belongs to Corporation. The requirement of following the principles of natural justice in such cases came to be considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Nawab Gulab Khan and others, AIR 1997 SC 152 . Their Lordships held that consideration does not create an absolute embargo to remove the encroachments, every Municipal Corporation has statutory obligation to provide free flow of traffic and have statutory duty to have the encroachment removed. It would, therefore, be inexpedient to give any direction not to remove or to allow the encroachments on the pavements or foot-paths which is a constant source of unhygienic ecology, traffic hazards and risk prone to lives of the pedestrians. It would be necessary to permit the Corporation to exercise the statutory powers to prevent encroachment of the pavements/footpaths and to prevent construction thereon and procedure of section 63 of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was held to be proper procedure. 18. It would be necessary to permit the Corporation to exercise the statutory powers to prevent encroachment of the pavements/footpaths and to prevent construction thereon and procedure of section 63 of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was held to be proper procedure. 18. In Olga Tellis and others vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others, AIR 1986 SC 180 the challenge to procedure prescribed under section 314 of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act on the ground of it being arbitrary, unfair and a not due procedure prescribed by law within the Article 21 was repelled. It was held by their Lordships that constitution does not put an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life and personal liberty by Article 21; such deprivation has to be according to the procedure established by law. Footpaths and pavements are public property which are not left for private use and the procedure prescribed under section 314 of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act by serving a notice was held to be due and reasonable procedure. In the instant case, notice was issued but the petitioners did not choose to file any reply and they filed the civil suit and after elaborate enquiry into the facts, trial Court as well as the Addl. District Judge Court in appeal refused to grant the injunction; civil suits were withdrawn during pendency of this writ petition and this writ petition itself was filed after 1½ years and petitioners have been heard elaborately in writ petition also; they have failed to make out any case to make any interference in the impugned action taken by the Municipal Corporation. 19. Learned counsel for petitioners places reliance on a decision of Apex Court in State of U. P. and others vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh, AIR 1989 SC 997 particularly in para 15 which is quoted below :- "A lessor, with the best of title, has no right to resume possession extra- judicially by use of force, from a lessee, even after the expiry or earlier termination of the lease by forfeiture or otherwise. The use of the expression "reentry" in the lease-deed does not authorise extrajudicial methods to resume possession. Under law, the possession of a lessee, even after the expiry or its earlier termination is judicial possession and forcible dispossession is prohibited; a lessee cannot be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. The use of the expression "reentry" in the lease-deed does not authorise extrajudicial methods to resume possession. Under law, the possession of a lessee, even after the expiry or its earlier termination is judicial possession and forcible dispossession is prohibited; a lessee cannot be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. In the present case, the fact that the lessor is the State does not place it any higher or better position. On the contrary, it is under an additional inhibition stemming from the requirement that all actions of Government and Governmental authorities should have a "legal procedure". In Bishandas vs. State of Punjab, (1962) 2 SCR 69 : ( AIR 1961 SC 1570 ), this Court said (at pp. 1574 and 1575 of AIR); "We must, therefore, repel the argument based on the contention that the petitioners were trespassers and could be removed by an executive order. The argument is not only specious but highly dangerous by reason of its implications and impact on law and order." "Before we part with this case, we feel it our duty to say that the executive action taken in this case by the State and its officers is destructive of the basic principle of the rule of law". Therefore, there is no question in the present case of the Government thinking of appropriating to itself an extrajudicial right of reentry. Possession can be resumed by Government only in a manner known to or recognized by law. It cannot resume possession otherwise than in accordance with law. Government is, accordingly, prohibited from taking possession otherwise than in due course of law. 20. It was a case of lessor and lessee; it was emphasised that extrajudicial right of re-entry should not be exercised but that is not the case here. Here the procedure prescribed under Municipal Corporation Act for removal of encroachment which is a reasonable procedure has been adopted. 21. Reliance is also placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Lallu Yeshwant Singh vs. Rao Jagdish Singh and others, AIR 1968 SC 620 to contend that landlord cannot exercise the right of re-entry himself. He must approach the Court for dispossession of tenant under section 137 of Qanoon Ryotwari, Gwalior Estate. Recourse should be head to the prescribed procedure. 22. He must approach the Court for dispossession of tenant under section 137 of Qanoon Ryotwari, Gwalior Estate. Recourse should be head to the prescribed procedure. 22. In Tamilnadu Housing Board vs. A. Viswam (Dead) by LRs, (1996) 8 SCC 259 the Supreme Court has laid down that the trespasser cannot claim injunction against the owner nor can the Court issue the same. 23. In Pratap Rai N. Kothari vs. John Braganza, AIR 1999 SC 1666 it has been held by their Lordships that a person who has been in long continuous possession can protect the same by seeking an injunction against any person in the world other than the true owner. It is also well settled that even the owner of the property can get back his possession only by resorting to due process of law. In the instant case, Municipal Corporation is the true owner and is not in dispute and procedure of law has been followed. 24. In Vivekanand Pratishtthan Parishad vs. Rehmat Ali and others, AIR 1993 Delhi 359 plaintiffs made unauthorised constructions and were occupying such constructions and on being threatened by Delhi Development authority to demolish such unauthorised construction moved Delhi High Court seeking relief for permanent injunction as well as the temporary injunction; the land was allotted to charitable society by DDA on payment of consideration for construction of hospital, plaintiffs squattered over remaining land belonging to the DDA and started claiming the tenancy rights under the society. It was held that the land belong to DDA and such claim is frivolous, therefore, they were treated as trespassers and squatters and the injunction was refused and it was held that DDA is entitled under the law to demolish the unauthorised construction and dispossess the plaintiffs. In the instant case, same factual situation exist. Existence of the lease P/2 is doubtful; payment of premium or rent is not established; Jabalpur Club was not authorised at all to induct any third person; land is owned by Jabalpur Municipal Corporation; as such action of Jabalpur Municipal Corporation has to be held to be reasonable and in accordance with law. 25. In M/s G. M. Modi Hospital and Research Centre Medical Science vs. Sh. 25. In M/s G. M. Modi Hospital and Research Centre Medical Science vs. Sh. Shankar Singh Bhandari and others, AIR 1996 Delhi 1 when the labourers of contractors engaged in constructing hospital buildings were occupying hutments raised at the construction site; they were held to be squatters and their removal was upheld. 26. In Premji Ratansey Shah and others vs. Union of India and others, (1994) 5 SCC 547 when injunction was granted in favour of trespasser on the Government land even though the land had been acquired by the Government and after such acquisition the owner of the land sold the same to the transferees, their possession was unlawful and that of trespasser. It was held by the Supreme Court that such possession being unlawful of a trespasser an injunction cannot be given in favour of trespasser or a person who is in unlawful possession as against the owner. 27. The Municipal Corporation is authorised to take certain actions under the provisions of sections 304, 322 and 323 of Municipal Corporation Act. It would be repugnant to the scheme of the legislation if the action is held to be illegal or impermissible. Ordinarily injunction cannot be issued to put a restraint on the exercise of such powers and if it has been exercised, its legality has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of the case. 28. In Hammersmith vs. Brand, LR 4 HL 171 (215) Lord Cairns said "It wou1d be repugnant and absurd piece of legislation to authorise by statute a thing to be done and at the same time to leave it to be restrained by injunction from doing the very thing which the legislature has expressly permitted to be done." It cannot be said that the power was abused by the Municipal Corporation. The law of injunction is well settled that a trespasser in possession is not entitled to temporary injunction against the true owner. In the instant case, relief is being sought against the true owner of restoration of possession. Possession has been taken following the process of law. Thus, the petitioners, in my opinion, are not entitled for restoration of possession. 29. Learned counsel for petitioners have alternatively raised the submission that the respondent/Municipal Corporation has indicated its willingness to offer alternate site in the return in para 59 as under :- "59. Possession has been taken following the process of law. Thus, the petitioners, in my opinion, are not entitled for restoration of possession. 29. Learned counsel for petitioners have alternatively raised the submission that the respondent/Municipal Corporation has indicated its willingness to offer alternate site in the return in para 59 as under :- "59. In reply to para 5.33 it is submitted that in case the petitioners approached the answering respondent for providing alternative accommodation, their request would be considered and in case suitable accommodation is available the same shall be allotted to the petitioners also along with other eligible persons." 30. Since willingness has been expressed by the Municipal Corporation in para 59 quoted above and the petitioners are ready to accept such an offer, let Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur make an endeavour to find out the suitable land to allot it. However, such allotment should not be to cater the interest of one individual, but in the larger interest of society. It is also clear from the facts on record that exhibition used to be organised for few months every year which can be said to be public purpose. The counsel for the Municipal Corporation has also stated that petitioners have to apply to the Corporation. Let the petitioners approach the Municipal Corporation; their prayer has to be considered suitably by the Municipal Corporation in accordance with the observations made hereinabove. 31. The action of the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur of ejectment is held to be in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Cost on parties.