M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

1. Since common issues of fact and law arise between the parties to these proceedings and all these cases relate to constructions made in same premises by the non-official respondent in these cases, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar for petitioner, Sri Ancha Panduranga Rao, Standing Counsel for Respondents 2/5 in both W.Ps and Respondent No. 1 in the CC, and Sri K.S. Murthy for Sri P. Subba Rao, Counsel for 4th respondent in the W.Ps and 2nd respondent in the CC.

3. The petitioner is a senior citizen and is carrying on Medical Profession in a hospital by name Dhulipala Hospital at premises bearing Door No. 12-25-179, Opposite Sivalayam, Kothapet, Guntur.

4. The 4th respondent in the Writ Petitions is the owner of the property bearing Door No. 12-25-180 which is adjacent to the petitioner's property. He is the 2nd respondent in C.C. No. 2124 of 2016.

5. In both writ petitions, the 1st respondent is the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, the 2nd respondent is the Guntur Municipal Corporation, the 3rd respondent is the A.P. Capital Regional Development Authority and the 5th respondent is the Commissioner of the Guntur Municipal Corporation impleaded eo nominee.

W.P. No. 31004 of 2016

6. Initially the petitioner filed W.P. No. 31004 of 2016 for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order in proceedings Roc. No. 5005/2016/G2, dt. 28.06.2016 issued by the 5th respondent on behalf of the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and without jurisdiction; to set aside the same; and to direct the 2nd respondent Corporation to take steps for demolition of the illegal and un-authorised structures put up by the 4th respondent in the premises 12-25-180, Kothapet.

7. Admittedly in the premises D. No. 12-25-180 belonging to 4th respondent, there was originally a hotel by name Abhilasha Hotel. According to the 4th respondent, his mother constructed a Ground + First floor + Second floor in the said premises after obtaining permission for construction, vide proceedings RC. No. G3, B.L. No. 421/78 dt. 03.02.1978.

8. The petitioner contended that without obtaining any permission from the 2nd respondent Corporation, the 4th respondent excavated a cellar, raised additional pillars/beams increasing the area of each floor resulting in the setbacks becoming non-existent and even occupied part of the petitioner's property. He contended that the excavation resulted in caving in of soil in petitioner's property creating gaping holes therein and exposing water and drain pipe lines. According to the petitioner, the construction activity undertaken by the 4th respondent endangers the safety of his building and inspite of complaints made on 25.02.2015, 07.04.2015, 17.03.2015 and 06.04.2016 to the 2nd respondent, no action was taken by it. He contended that he also addressed a complaint to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent wrote to the 2nd respondent in L. Dis. No. E1-169/2015 dt. Nil-08-2015 stating that the construction embarked by the 4th respondent was un-authorised and the 2nd respondent should take action and report to it, but the 2nd respondent did not take any action.

9. The petitioner then filed W.P. No. 12357 of 2016 in this Court challenging the inaction of the 2nd respondent on his complaints. The said Writ petition was disposed of on 13.04.2016 to take action within four weeks from the order on the petitioner's above complaint.

10. The petitioner then filed C.C. No. 916 of 2016 alleging disobedience of this order, but the said Contempt case was closed on 27.08.2016 on the basis of a counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent that she inspected the building and instructed the 4th respondent to submit building proposal of third floor in accordance with rules; and that the staff of the 2nd respondent corporation had removed one column on the northeast side and third floor roof slab.

Proceeding Dt. 28.06.2016

11. A m