Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked When Statutory Alternative Remedies for Disputed Factual Encroachments Remain Unexhausted.

The petitioner, a registered industrial unit, was allotted 19,820 square feet of land in Industrial Area, Sirlai, Barwaha, through two lease deeds in 2009.

Following a show-cause notice issued on 02.05.2024 alleging lease violations, the General Manager, DTIC Khargone, cancelled the allotment and lease deed on 12.07.2024.

The petitioner appealed to the Commissioner, MSME, who dismissed the appeal on 26.05.2025 based on an inspection report/Panchnama dated 08.05.2025, which found the petitioner in possession of 64,800 square feet (of which 31,780 sq. ft. was illegal encroachment) and noted the industrial unit was closed without machinery.

Consequently, Respondent No. 4 issued an eviction notice on 17.02.2026.

The petitioner challenged these actions under Article 226 of the Constitution, claiming the excess land belonged to another entity and that no proper demarcation was conducted.

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding land demarcation and encroachment.

2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of a statutory alternative remedy under the relevant MSME Rules.

The Court applied the principle that extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used as an appellate forum to re-appreciate factual findings determined by competent authorities.

It further relied on the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies, specifically Rule 44(2) of the M.P. MSME Industrial Land and Building Allotment and Management Rules, 2025, which provides a statutory second appeal before the Secretary, Department of MSME.

The Court also referenced Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) regarding the petitioner’s claim of fundamental rights violations.

The Court observed that the competent authorities had provided due process by issuing a show-cause notice and conducting a site inspection in the presence of the proprietor.

The reasoning focused on the fact-finding nature of the dispute; the Commissioner, MSME, had already recorded categorical findings based on the Panchnama dated 08.05.2025 regarding the illegal occupation of 31,780 square feet and the non-industrial use of the premises.

The Court found that it could not act as a fact-finding body to re-examine these demarcations.

Crucially, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to utilize the efficacious, statutory alternative remedy of a second appeal available under Rule 44 of the 2025 Rules.

It held that since there are clear factual findings of encroachment recorded by lower authorities and a statutory remedy of second appeal is available, there are no valid grounds for the High Court to interfere at this stage.

All pending applications were disposed of.