M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"The locus standi under sub-section 5 of Section 307 of the Act of 1956 is not restricted to a person affected by the violation complained of but encompasses all persons resident within the area to which the Act of 1956 applies." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a civil revision dated 22nd September 2026, held that an application for injunction against illegal construction under Section 307(5) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, can only be maintained by a person who is a resident of the municipal area governed by the said Act.

Justice Vinay Saraf observed that while the statute grants a wide right to "any person" to challenge unauthorized constructions, this right is circumscribed by the requirement of residency within the local limits of the concerned Municipal Corporation.

The petitioner sought a direction from the District Court, Indore, under Section 307(5) of the 1956 Act, alleging that the respondents had constructed a building in violation of the sanctioned map and building permissions. The trial court dismissed the application on the grounds that the petitioner, who provided his address as Mhow, did not reside within the local limits of the Indore Municipal Corporation. The petitioner challenged this dismissal, contending that the Act does not explicitly restrict the right to sue to local residents.

The primary question before the court was whether a person residing outside the local limits of a Municipal Corporation, where the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 applies, has the locus standi to maintain an application under Section 307(5) against illegal constructions within that municipal area. The court also considered whether the petitioner could rely on property ownership in a different part of the city to satisfy the residency requirement.

Interpretation of Section 307(5)

The court referred to the Full Bench decision in Dilip Kaushal & Another vs. State of M.P. & Ors, which established that the remedy under Section 307(5) is independent of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The court clarified that the legislature intended to provide a robust mechanism for the enforcement of building regulations by allowing any person to approach the court when there is a contravention of the Act or bye-laws.

Locus Standi and Residency Requirement

While the court acknowledged that the "any person" provision is expansive, it emphasized that such standing is not unlimited. The court held that the legislative intent behind the statute, which governs building control within specific municipal boundaries, necessitates that the complainant must be a resident of that specific municipal area.

"The locus standi under sub-section 5 of Section 307 of the Act of 1956 is not restricted to a person affected by the violation complained of but encompasses all persons resident within the area to which the Act of 1956 applies," the court noted, citing the Full Bench ruling.

Rejection of Petitioner’s Standing

The court found that the petitioner’s stated address in both the original application and the revision petition was in Mhow, which falls under the Cantonment Board and is governed by the Cantonment Act, 2006, rather than the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The court further dismissed the petitioner's plea that he owned a house in the Sukhlia Colony of Indore, noting that he had consistently represented himself as a resident of Mhow throughout the litigation.

"Any application under sub-section 5 of Section 307 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 can be maintained and filed by any person before the District Court complaining the illegal construction of any building, but the person, who files and maintains the application should be resident of the municipal area," the court clarified.

Ultimately, the High Court held that the trial court committed no error in dismissing the application due to the petitioner's lack of locus standi as a non-resident. The civil revision was dismissed, affirming that the statutory remedy for challenging illegal building activities is geographically limited to residents within the municipal jurisdiction.

Date of Decision: 22 September 2026