ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :-- “7.1 That, by an appropriate writ, direction r order the respondents be restrained not to encroach the petitioner's land and not to dispossess the petitioner from land bearing Khasra No. 248 (divided into 248/1/1, 248/1/2 and 248/2) admeasuring 3.34 acre i.e. 1.352 Hectare and also not to demolish the two constructed houses situated on the land. 7.1 That, by an appropriate order the respondents be directed to lift-up all soil and solid waste building materials dumped on petitioners land with immediate effect. 7.2 Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court deems proper and fit in the circumstances of the case be granted with cost in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are encroaching upon her land by dumping soil, waste building materials on the land to establish City Waste Collection/dumping station without any notice to the petitioner or without acquiring the land. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she happens to be the sole owner and in possession of the land bearing survey No. 248 (divided into 248/1/1, 248/1/2 and 248/2) admeasuring 3.34 acre i.e. 1.352 Hectare situated in New Palasia (Old Palasia Hana), Indore and two houses constructed thereon. She has claimed the aforesaid lands being the legal heir of her maternal grandfather Late Ramkrishnadas Guru Jagannathdas, who executed his Will on 28.7.2016, and passed away on 12.9.2020. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid Will the petitioner has become the sole owner of the said property. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the land in question was initially allotted by the then Holkar State on 24.10.1930 as inamdar to Late Jagannathdas (the Guru and father of Late Ramkrishnadas) who was the Pujari of a temple known as Khedapati Hanuman Mandir, in lieu of his religious services, to earn his livelihood. The said land was continuously shown and recorded in the name of Late Jagannathdas in the revenue records up to year 1952. After his demise, the said land was mutated in the name of Ramkrishnadas by the order dated 9.1.1952, of Mafi Office of the then Government of Madhya Bharat, Gwalior. On 23.5.1952, the name of Ramkrishnadas was recorded as Bhoomiswami by the Tehsildar, Indore in the process of Nam-Kayami. After his demise, the said land was mutated in the name of Ramkrishnadas by the order dated 9.1.1952, of Mafi Office of the then Government of Madhya Bharat, Gwalior. On 23.5.1952, the name of Ramkrishnadas was recorded as Bhoomiswami by the Tehsildar, Indore in the process of Nam-Kayami. The Nayab Tehsildar, Indore also issued a Rin-Pushtika in the name and favour of Ramkrishnadas. Subsequently, the said land was duly diverted by the Revenue Authority in Revenue Case No.5-A/2/1980 and the diversion tax was regularly paid by Ramkrishnadas. In the year 1972 the Halka Patwari of Tehsil, Indore without any reason and without any order of competent authority, on his own, changed the entry in the revenue record thereby deleting the name of Ramkrishadas as Bhoomi Swami and in place thereof recorded the entry Khedapati Hanuman Mandir Manager Collector, District Indore as Bhoomi Swami. The Tehsildar, Juni, Indore thereafter initiated a proceeding against Ramkirshnadas under section 248 of Land Revenue Code, 1956 alleging him as an encroacher on the land in question and served a notice dated 13.9.2013 for dispossession and removal of the alleged encroachment within 24 hours. The said notice was challenged by Ramkrishnadas by filing a petition bearing Writ Petition No. 11007/2013 before this Court seeking the relief of quashment of said notice and restraining the respondent from dispossessing the land and vide its order dated 24.9.2013 this Court was pleased to allow the petition with certain directions and the possession of the land was also protected. 5. It is further the case of the petitioner that the order passed by the Tehsildar, Juni, Indore on 16.11.2012 under section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1956 has been affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Indore vide its order dated 13.9.2013, which was also challenged before the Additional Commissioner, Revenue, Indore who also affirmed the aforesaid order vide its order dated 26.3.2015. And, in the revision preferred by Ramkrishnadas, the Board of Revenue has remanded back the case to the Tehsildar, Indore to decide the same on its merits. On 12.9.2018, late Ramkrishadas filed an application under section 115 of M.P.Land Revenue Code before the Tehsildar and the Tehsildar, Juni, Indore passed the order on 10.8.2021 for quashing the proceedings initiated under section 428 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. 6. On 12.9.2018, late Ramkrishadas filed an application under section 115 of M.P.Land Revenue Code before the Tehsildar and the Tehsildar, Juni, Indore passed the order on 10.8.2021 for quashing the proceedings initiated under section 428 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. 6. It is further the case of the petitioner is that thereafter on 15.8.2021, and on 19.8.2021, the respondents have tried to encroach upon the land of the petitioner by dumping soil, waste building material on land and also by excavating it. 7. Shri A.K. Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents' action to encroach upon the land of the petitioner despite there being a specific order passed by the Revenue Officer is not only violates the law but it is also against the principles of natural justice as no notice of any kind has ever been served to the petitioner by the respondents before encroaching upon the land. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the respondents be restrained from encroaching the petitioner's land. 8. A reply to the petition has also been filed by the respondents and it is submitted that the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Court and various relevant documents have not been filed on record. It is further submitted that the case involves disputed questions of facts and thus, such declaration as sought by the petitioner in this petition cannot be granted. 9. Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the late Jagannathdas Gurun Nandkishoredas was the inamadar of the land and the inam was in favour of Devsthan (temple) only and he was only given the worshipping rights in the year 1930 as reflected from the documents and the aforesaid documents do not make him the title holder of the property. It is also submitted that even the document Annexure P/2 which is the “Parcha Babat Tahkikat Inam Zamin” is also required to be proved in accordance with law in the civil Court of competent jurisdiction and the title of the property cannot be claimed in the present writ petition. It is also submitted that even the document Annexure P/2 which is the “Parcha Babat Tahkikat Inam Zamin” is also required to be proved in accordance with law in the civil Court of competent jurisdiction and the title of the property cannot be claimed in the present writ petition. It is admitted that the Additional Collector, Indore in the revision No.3/21-22 vide its order dated 30.9.2021 passed under section 50 of the Land Revenue Code has declared the petitioner as an encroacher after taking into account the orders which the petitioner has referred to in the petition. Thus, it is submitted that it is not a simple case which can be decided only on affidavits filed by the parties as the facts of the case are also denied regarding the petitioner being the legal heir of the late Ramkrishnadas Guru Jagannathdas. Thus, it is submitted that the petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. 10. Heard counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 11. From the record, this Court finds that the present petition involves various disputed question of facts and the mandatory injunction which the petitioner has sought in the petition, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be granted by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and thus, the petition being misconceived is hereby dismissed, however, with a liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of such remedy as is available under law. 12. It is made clear that if the petitioner files a civil suit to assail her rights before the trial Court, the learned Judge of the trial Court shall decide the same on its own merits without being influenced by the order passed by this Court. 13. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed.