Judgment: B.D. Rathi, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the notice dated 18-12-2008 Annexure P/1 issued by respondent No. 4 Commissioner Municipal Corporation Gwalior alleging that by making encroachment over the Government land petitioner has unauthorizedly raised the construction of boundary wall and one room over it and therefore, petitioner is required to remove the said encroachment within 24 hours else respondent No. 3 shall remove the said encroachment in exercise of powers conferred under section 318(2), (3) and 322(3) of the Municipal Corporation Act. As per petitioner, it is a company registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956. The disputed property was purchased by the petitioner company from Ashok Kumar Shukla vide registered sale deed dated 29-1-1999 (Annexure P/4) and since then petitioner company is in possession of said property in the capacity of owner. The boundary wall and one room (as referred in the impugned notice) was already constructed by previous owner Ashok Kumar Shukla which is clear from the map enclosed with the sale deed (Annexure P/4) executed in favour of petitioner company by Ashok Kumar Shukla. Thus, the petitioner company is in lawful possession over the said property in the capacity of owner and petitioner has neither encroached nor any part of property is in question. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that without any enquiry and without ascertaining the actual position existing on the spot, respondent No. 4 has issued illegal and arbitrary impugned notice Annexure P/1 to the petitioner. 2. Petitioner further pleaded that the respondents have wrongly mentioned in the impugned notice that petitioner has encroached upon the said property and unauthorizedly erected the boundary wall and one room over it. The facts mentioned in the impugned notice Annexure P/1 are totally incorrect and it is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and it is contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, hence deserves to be quashed. 3. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking relief that respondents No. 3 and 4 be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner company from the property of which it is registered owner. 4. 3. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking relief that respondents No. 3 and 4 be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner company from the property of which it is registered owner. 4. By submitting reply to the petition, respondents No. 1 and 2 averred that the notice Annexure P/1 has been legally issued to the petitioner and if petitioner is aggrieved from the said notice then he could have preferred an appeal before the appellate authority prescribed under the Municipal Corporation Act, hence petition entail dismissal. 5. Respondents No. 3 and 4 by submitting their reply averred that Ashok Kumar Shukla had wrongly sold the property because he was not owner of the disputed property mentioned in the notice. The notice has been legally issued after making enquiry hence the petition preferred by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents and after perusal of material record, it seems that the disputed room was already in existence on 28-1-1999 when the sale deed was executed by previous owner Ashok Kumar Shukla in favour of petitioner company much prior to the date of impugned notice dated 18-12-2008. 7. From perusal of record, it is also clear that prior to issuing notice Annexure P/1 opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. By issuing impugned notice Annexure P/1 respondents have directed the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment within 24 hours. Such kind of order/notice could not be passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the party concerned and without ascertaining the fact whether property in dispute was really encroached by the party concerned or not. 8. It is settled law that opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the opposite party and without that no order can be passed otherwise such order shall fall within the ambit and purview of illegality which deserves quashing. 9. So far as the objection of availability of alternative efficacious remedy is concerned, we are of considered view that this objection can be sustained only when the impugned order/notice was passed in accordance with the provisions of law. 9. So far as the objection of availability of alternative efficacious remedy is concerned, we are of considered view that this objection can be sustained only when the impugned order/notice was passed in accordance with the provisions of law. If it is not so, meaning thereby if any impugned order/notice is not passed in accordance with the provisions of law then it is not necessary for the party to avail the alternative efficacious remedy but he can very well approach this Court under Article 226 of Constitution. In this case impugned notice Annexure P/1 has not been issued in accordance with law as mentioned above. In view of the aforesaid premises, we are of the considered view that the impugned notice Annexure P/1 has been issued without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is imperative, hence petition is allowed. Petitioner is directed to submit his reply with supporting evidence within fifteen days from today before respondents. In turn, respondents are directed to decide the same in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of reply of petitioner after affording proper opportunity of hearing. Further, it is directed that till decision on reply of petitioner by the respondents, no coercive action shall be taken by the respondents.