ORDER:

The present writ petition has been filed to grant the following relief:

“ …. to issue a writ or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the inaction on the part of the 4th respondent to enforce its own orders in P.O.U.C.20, dated 24.04.2018, as illegal, arbitrary amounting to infringement of his fundamental rights and hence unconstitutional the respondent Nos.1 to 4, more particularly, the 4th respondent may be directed to enforce said orders without any further delay to ensure stop construction activity by 5th respondent and to remove the illegal constructions already raised by 5th respondent in land of petitioner in Sy.No.256 at Nagarkurnool village, Nagarkurnool District.”

2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of Ac.0.23 guntas in Survey No.256/A, at Nagarkurnool, and that the 5th respondent is the owner of adjacent lands in Survey No.258. It is alleged that the 5th respondent has encroached the petitioner’s land and started making constructions. The petitioner raised objections before the 4th respondent-Commissioner, Nagarpanchayat, and the 4th respondent got the same verified through the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, and found that the constructions made by the 5th respondent is in Survey No.256/A, and not in Survey No.258. Thereafter, the 4th respondent issued a provisional Order and Notice vide P.O.U.C.20, dated 24.04.2018 directing to the 5th respondent to remove the structures raised by her in Survey No.256/A in contravention of the construction permission granted to her. It is further asserted that the 5th respondent did not stop the construction activity, and the petitioner was constrained to make a complaint to the 4th respondent requesting to take action by implementing the provisional Order and Notice dated 24.04.2018, and since no action has been taken to enforce the said Notice, provisional order and notice, dated 24.04.2018, the petitioner is constrained to file the writ petition.

3. Heard Mr. V.Hanumanth Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities for respondent No.4, and Mr. N.Manohar, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that Initially the survey was conducted on the directions of the 3rd respondent and the provision order-cum-notice P.O.U.C.20 dated 24.04.2018 was issued by directing the 5th respondent to remove the illegal construction and subsequently, at the behest of the 5th respondent, a survey was conducted behind the back of the petitioner, and the petitioner objected to the survey on 23.05.2018 stating that the survey cannot be done without tippons. It is the case of the petitioner that, he is the owner of land in Sy.No.256 and the 5th respondent is owner in Sy.No.258. Further, it is contended that as the 5th respondent having sensed that she had no chances to succeed on merits of the case, contended that the petitioner’s land is lost in road widening without mentioning any details. Further, the petitioner contended that as the land of the 5th respondent is abutting the old existing straight road from Mahabubnagar to Nagarkurnool, the 5th respondent land is lost in road widening.

5. The petitioner finally contends that even in the Survey Report in pursuance of the orders of this Court, dated 10.12.2024, the Survey authorities have not demarcated the land by using tippons in Survey No.256 and conducted survey as per village map, despite clear directions of this Court that the survey should be conducted with the help of tippon only.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 5th respondent reiterating the facts in the counter-affidavit contends that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.49 of 2017 before the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool and pleaded that he purchased Ac.0.23 guntas in Survey No.256 of Nagarkurnool Village & Mandal, and that the petitioner sold away some land, and the petitioner was left with Ac.0.0