Disputes regarding factual existence of roads and encroachments are not suitable for resolution under Article 226 of the Constitution and should be addressed in civil court.

ORDER :

T. Madhavi Devi, J. 

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 24.09.2024 and in not removing the illegal encroachment and digging made by the respondent No.5 on the 40 feet existing gram panchayat road, thereby blocking the ingress and egress of the petitioner industry in Survey No.15, Thoompalli Village, Kondurg Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the official respondents to remove the illegal encroachments made by the respondent No.5 and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner industry is engaged in the business of manufacturing of packaging products and had purchased the land Ac.2.39 guntas in Survey No.15 along with 8,600 sft., of tin shed and 2,000 sft., of RCC constructed area, situated at Thoompally Village and Gram Panchayat, Kondurg Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from the earlier industry i.e., GN Packaging under a registered sale deed bearing document No.17401 of 2018, dated 10.09.2018. Subsequently, the petitioner claims to have obtained all necessary permissions for manufacturing of packaging products and has been successfully running its operations without any hindrances. It is submitted that the respondent No.5, the neighbor of the petitioner and owner of the adjacent land in Survey No.75 of Thoompally Village and Gram Panchayat, Kondurg Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, has illegally blocked the ingress and egress to the factory of the petitioner by encroaching the 12.19 (40)Mtrs., public road and has commenced the construction activities without obtaining any permissions from the respondent No.2 department. It is submitted that erstwhile industry M/s.GN Packaging had obtained approval of factory plans from the respondent No.2 on 26.05.2007 and the respondent No.2 had inspected the land and has observed that it had 40 feet existing road and was away from the river, lake, nala to a distance of 30 meters and there were no residential colonies, no educational/ medical/religious institutions near to the Survey No.15 and a certificate to that extent was issued in favour of the earlier industry enclosing the location sketch. It is submitted that vendor of the petitioner also obtained a DTCP approval clearly showing that there exists 40 feet wide road towards eastern side of Survey No.15 and after purchase of the property, the petitioner has obtained mutation proceedings from respondent No.2 on 17.11.2018 and has also obtained the location sketch from TS-iPass on 22.02.2020 wherein it is clearly shown that on the eastern side of Survey No.15, there exists 40 feet wide road. The petitioner claims to have submitted a representation dated 24.09.2024 to the authorities to stop the illegal digging and construction by the respondent No.5, but since no action has been initiated by the official respondents, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. This Court vide order dated 24.10.2024 after considering the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 and the documents filed by the petitioner along with reply to the counter affidavit, observed that there was a road from Vanampally to Thoompalli from the main road abutting Survey No.76 and further that the petitioner cannot be denied the facility of ingress and egress from his property, more particularly when there is a main road to Thoompally Village via Vanampally Village. Therefore, this Court had directed the petitioner to close the pits allegedly dug by the respondent No.5 and use the same for ingress and egress until further orders of this Court and that the said interim order is subject to restoration of the said possession to respondent No.5 if it is found that the respondent No.5 had the right over the said property and there was permission for him to make con