[ 3183 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO: 18424 OF 2026

Between:

Aruna Agarwal, Wo. Manoj Kumar, aged about 55 years, Occ Housewife,

R/o. H.No.3-2, Road No.23, Alkapur Township, Neknampur Village, Gandipet

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

...PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Municipal Administration and Urban

Development Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, NTR

Marg, Central Secretariat, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana-500022

2. The Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Madhapur, Hyderabad, rep. by its

Commissioner.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Narsingi -

Circle 45,

4. The Assistant City Planner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Narsingi -

Circle 45,

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased

to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of

Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners

representation dated 06.06.2026 submitted under Sections 455-4 and 455-AA of the

GHMC Act seeking regularization of deviations, if any, in respect of the building

situated in Plot No.30, Block-B, Sector-lll, Survey No.108, admeasuring 598 Square

Yards or 499.9 Square Meters situated at Road No.23, Alkapur Township,

Neknampur Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under Narsingi Circle-

45, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation and consequently proposing coercive action

without considering the said representation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of

Sections 455-4 and 455-AA of the GHMC Act and consequently direct the

respondents not to take any coercive steps including demolition, sealing or

interference with the above subject property of the petitioner

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

,affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the

respondents not to take any coercive steps including demolition, sealing or

interference with the petitioners building situated in Plot No.30, Block-B, Sector-lll,

liurvey No.10B, admeasuring 598 Square Yards or 499.9 Square Meters situated at

lload No.23, Alkapur Township, Neknampur Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga

tleddy District, falling under the jurisdiction of Narsingi Circle-45, Cyberabad

t\"4unicipal Corporation, pending consideration of the petitioners representation dated

06.06 2026 and pending disposal of the present writ petition

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. THOOM SRINIVAS

Gounsel for the Respondent No. 1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2to4: SRI LAXMAIAH KANCHANI,

SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

The Court made the following: ORDER

3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

WRIT PETITON No.18424 OF 2026

DATE:t7-06-2026

Between:

Mrs. Aruna Agarwal

... Petitioner

AND

The State ofTelangana

Rep. By its Principal Secretary,

Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others

... Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare

the action of respondents in not considering her representation

dated 06.06.2026 submitted under Sections 455-A and 455-AA of

the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 (for short

'GHMC Act') in respect of the properly bearing plot

No.30,

Block-B, Sector-III, admeasuring 598 square yards in Survey

No. 108 situated at Road No.23, Alkapur Township, Neknampur

I

Village, Gandipet N1anclal. Ranga Reddy District, as being illegal

and arbitran

2. Ileard Mr. Ihoom Srinivas, leamed counsel fbr the

petitioner, and N{r. L-ax.rluiah Kanchani, learned standing counsel

tbr respondent Nos.l to i. ancl perused the material on record

3. It is statetl peLitioncr is the owner ol the property bearing

Plot \o.30, Illock-ll" Sector-lll, S,-rrve1 No.l08 admeasuring 598

square 1'ards situatcd at Road No.23, Alkapur Township,

Neknampur \/illage. Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. i.e.,

sub.lect property. Petitionel constructed Ground - two (2) upper

tloors on lhe sub.iect pr'(tlrcrt about twenty five (25)

1'ears ago and

it has been utilized lirr irsitler.rtial purpose.

1. It is subnrittcc rhrt ou'ing to joint tami[5 requirements,

petilioner constructcd lclCitional two (2) floors and a pent house on

the subject propefl ovr:r' the existing Grotrnd + tu o (2) upper

lloors. Respondent l\o.-l passed impugned speaking order vide

No.G l, UC rTI)S'NR SG'Sl P 7. t CMC I 2.026iOW3 7 datea 29.05.2026

pursua.t to a cor,olaini rlleging that petitioner- has encr:oached trvo

t.

5

public roads (each admeasuring 320 f-eet X 25 feet at Road No.23,

Alkapur Township, by constructing cornpound walls. That the

office of respondent No.3 inspected the site and observed that

petitioner was proceeding with construction of 3'd, 4th and 5th floors

and a pent house on existing Ground + one (1) upper floor on

subject property contrary to the provisions of GHMC Act and Bye-

laws made there under, and dilected the petitioner to forthrvith stop

unauthorized constructior.r and remove the same within fifteen (15)

days.

5. It is further stated petitioner submitted representation dated

06.06.2026 to respondent No.2 under Sections 455-4 and 455-AA

of GHMC Act to regularize the ur.rauthorized construction made on

the subject property. As there is inaction on the parl of respondent

authorities in processing the petitioner's representation, she is

constrained to approach this Court

MENANCE OF UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTIONS:

6. Unauthorized constructions in tl.re city of Hyderabad appear

to have become a norrn rather than breach. Thousands of writ

6

petitions are filcd e\er \ear challenging the orders passed by the

GI{MC/Municipal autholities. u'hereby, buildingowners are

directed 1t.l removc unauthorized constructions. It has become a

habit in filing u'rit petitionr,, o'en etier speaking (dernolition) orders

have heen passcd fbr- renlolal o1- unauthorized construction. In

man\such cases, parties are filing applications under Sections

45-5-A and :155-;\A ol the GHMC Act for regi,rlarization of

unauthorized construction and pending consideration of such

regularization applications. inlelim ordels have been passed.

Couns had been taking lenient view to protecl the interests of the

parties. pencl ing consideration ol such legularization applications

In the counter afficlarit lricd b1'GHMC in W.P. (PtL) No.63 of

2016. in parrglaph No.ll.{ t}re lcin. it was stated that Corporation

receir.ed 1,38.630 (One lal..h thirty eight thousand six hundred and

thirty only) applications sceking regularization of unauthorized

constructlonslionr r.i hich it can be assumed that nou there might

be rnore than trro (l) lakhs rpplications seeking regularization.

7. It is

1:rerlinent to n()re that this Clourt has not come across a

single older ltassed regiri:irizing r.tnauthorized structnres under

7

Sections 455-4 and 455-AA of the GHMC Act. Notwithstanding

the entitlement of parties seeking regularization and their eligibility

under the above two (2) provisions, in several cases building

owners having land ofabout 100-200 square yards are approaching

this Court seeking regularization of structures, as of three (3)/four

(4)/five (5) floors even when building regulations (under G.O

Ms.No.l68 MA& UD dated 07.04.2012) permit maximum of Stilt

(for parking) + two (2) upper floors. The regularization under

Sections 455-4 and 455-AA can be done only if building

permission can otherwise be approved as per the existing building

bye-laws and zonal regulations. [t is not as if for an area of 100

square yards where building peln'rission to rnaximum can be

granted for Stilt + one (1) or two (2) trpper f'loors, the building can

be regularized if ibur (4) or five (5) floors are constructed, which is

incom prehens ib le

8. The permissible building envelope (built-up area) as per

G.O. Ms.No.168, MA&tD. dated 07.021.20[2 is extracted below:

l{

GREATI]R IIYDER,\I,AD \II i1-]CI

RIAD!-REckoxER:FERMIsstal.tBtrl.al{G l:rrLr orl :ni:,Lll.RlSF Pl-O',]; tir rO 7s0 Slr I. Ruk i,c.a l r.lto ltS ltl\&UD Dt:

TAL CORPORAI'IO:{ _'IO\{]! PI'4NMNC SEC'TION

rz4*:'

i;Ti6fiilffi,""l ,*."

r[{- I

' x& lr.*,rrnn^ l- -

r.4hr,n) I

"

-_ I

',

r,. : .

|I1

lrcalfn',us4oA5?o

rd!, @rdn(tErdrdn

(rq'

)lr t',!'url..:@ de

Elrr

'

:1=l

ls1. r:nr$qa-<r

!r..r

'.lfuiq+,

r: l5'q*r3 r (fPr4 d

!r L m.buFm da 6) Ftr \o( 6rPld

l-.

--

| I_!

r, ,or ) Li lr,*trr

r-llll_ arr}' Fl-'\.xIr

coMlfis90ilii

i. r7r r'11{ . i!. 94.m & rfull

'

ro 0

i{ftL,rl crsni! rt:e nn! t n'

It is clear lion'r the above ihat lbr the plots having area betu'een

100-200 s.lLrare rneters ( l10-239 square ,vards),

nlaximum height

pennissiblc is tcn ( l0) mete rs and buitding perrnission can be

sanctioned t-naritt.ttttn Ibr

( ;rottntl + two (2) tlpper floors.

9. It isastonishing tir t]otice llom several cases flled in this

Court that pt'opertt o\!113ts ilaring 400-600 square yards despite

having permissitrn firr tri o (l);thlec (l) floors ale going for

construction of ertra ilor-'r' *'iti-lout any' permission, Even flve

floors perruissiorr is !llarrl,'tl. still sirth (6'h) unauthorized floor'

construction is nracle r.nd ir marrr cases pent house is constructed

'Ihe

pent housc so constllictecl in rnost of the cases is w.ith an

I

oblique motive to make it appear that terrace (unauthorized

portion) is partly constructed and fbr the so called vaastu or other

reasons invented only for seeking relief tiorn the Court. In fact,

pent houses constructed in most of the buildings in the city are

unauthorized. It is called pent house only to make it appear that

structures over the terrace is not constt'tlcted for the entire roof but

only in the part of roof. The hidden rcason however appears to be

owner of the property does not want such unauthorized

construction to be visible from outside

10. Several unauthorized constrttctiot-t s in the manner discussed

above are made without paying single rupee to the

GHMC/Municipal authorities and onll' Ilaction of cases land up in

Courts, that too because of the vigilant neighbours and sometimes

by busy bodies. Many thousands of building owners have

constructed unauthorized floors/structut es and the loss caused to

local authorities i.e., GHMC/Municipal authorities, as the case may

be is huge. It is not as if structures are made over night. When

unauthorized structures/deviations are made, it is expected of

GHMC/Municipality to stop the construction at the initial stages

li)

which is often not donr'. I t' ttttauthorized constructions go unabated

then it u ill senrl a u rotrg lressage to the societl'. , law abiding

citizen uho takcs pertnission. constructs building in accordance

with sanctioned plan, gets rhc propertv assessed. pays property tax,

will naturalll gct an irnptt:sion that persons making unauthorized

constl'ucti()n docs not har t rrn\' t'ear of law and are going scot free

Both canncl be treatecl etltillll , otherl,ise the $'rong doer making

unauthorized construction u ould get habituated and in future may

go fbr anothel unauthoriz,,'il building /construction. ln the opinion

of this Courr. the (iHM( and the (iovernment also s,:em to be not

havins strict policl in tackling unauthorized constructions

I 1. l-his ('otrrt in lact h,'rird hundreds of cases where propefty

ownels having le ss thar i j{)-

100 sqtrare vards also have gone for

constlr.rction o1' lhree (i i fhc (i) tloors and maj,rr portion of

stnlctLrres arc un aLrthoriz.:rl. I intbrtunately Municipal authorities

u'ho are ari are aud srtpposed to be aware when building

constnrction is cornrncnc,.:rl r iolatinq bve lar,",s zLnd buildine

permission and thev are borind to stop sLlch constmction, they do

not take plonrpr aelion. lhis happens because of political or other

T

ll

support people enjoy. If unauthorized constructions go unchecked

and not regulated and people are allow,ed to take advantage of

orders in sirnilar cases in the guise of regularization under Sections

455-4 and 455-AA of GHMC Act, then it may also lead to another

danger that people who do not have title to property may also make

unauthorized construction either by grabbing or encroaching

private or public property. Eventualll, a person who does not have

title to the property may construct building without any buitding

permit from the competent authority. This will not only lead to a

dangerous situation but would further lead to colossal loss to the

local authorities.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Courl in Vellore Citizens' Welfare

Forum v. Union of Indiar has recognized the principle

,,polluter

pays" in a matter relating to environrnental pollution by tannery

industries. On the same analogl, \,vrong

doer/propertyowner

making unauthorized construction should be penalized. The wrong

doer or violator has to pay. Unless penalty is imposed it would

become habitual fbr the wrong doers and it will lead to unhealthy

' 1tol6y s scc o+t

trend and also crruse hugc ioss to State exchequer. 1)nless persons

rnaking unalrthorizcd constluctiorts are penalized this Court leels

that there n itl be rro chai: qs in their mind set. [f .rbout five (5)

VCATSback. there re orre lakh (I,00.000) unauthorized

consrluctions u,ithin GHNi(' lirnits (GIIMC, MMC, CMC), it can

be assumed tlie ligr,rrcs citn be much tnore in the prc'sent times.

13.

-fhe

unautholizecl cor.tstt uction n.rade by violating buitding

b,ve la*'s crcrttes burdr-'n rr;l tlte cii ic administration, infrastructure

and errvilonmeni: huge n.r('i'r and rnachinerl is required to remove

and regulate unauthorizccl L-(instrllclion and as stated above, there is

loss to ClflN4('/ N4uniciprri authorities and thel are deprived of

building pcnnission ti:,:s.

-fhLrs.

to curb the Llnauthorized

constt'r.rction this ('oi-rrt iltt,ls it necessary to impose costs. There is

a need to send clcar n^,t-ssage that unauthorized constructions

cannot bc krlelatc'd ancl hr.r c to be penalized.

11. On cluelr of tliis ( i,rllrt as to rvhv costs should not be

imposccl tbr nraking unaiiihi;rized construction. leanred counsel for

the petitioncr strbrrritteil l,-,.,t ie asonable costs tnay bc irlposed.

li

15. In the instant case, property ofpetitioner is admeasuring 598

square yards and two (2) floors along with pent houseare

unauthorizedly constructed i.e., approximately about 8,000- I0,000

square feet is unauthorizedly constructed and the value of which

will not be less than Rs.3-4 crores

16. In the above circumstances, the w rit petitior.r is disposed ot,

directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated

06.06.2026 submitted by the petitioner under Sections 455-4 and

455-AA of the GHMC Act for regularizing the unauthorized

construction/floors over the ploperly bearing Plot No.30, Block -B,

Sector-lII, admeasuring 598 square yardstnSurvey No.108

situated at Road No.3, Alkapur Tou'nship, Neknarnpur Village,

Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddl District. and pass orders,ln

accordance with taw, by issuing notice to the petitioner, and all

other concemed/interested petsons, b1 aflbrding opportunity of

hearing to them, subject to the condition of petitioner paying

lollowing costs

(i) A sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupecs two lakhs only) to the

Cyberabad Municipal Corporation (CMC).

l-+

I'he ('otlnrissi<'ncr'. Cyberabad Municipal Corporation

shall utilizc this rmoirnt for providing health benefits to

the ( lass-lV c nplor ees like sca\/engers. sanitarl

11,6p1<ers, s\/eepcis etc. rvho are appointed on contractual

or outsourc ing brrsis.

(i1) .{

'unr

ol- Rs. L()0.000,'- (Rupees one lakn only) to the

Telangana l{ieh l or,rrt Advocates AssociatLon (THCAA).

'Ihc

t Iigh Courr Advocates Association shall maintain

separale accounl r-rndcr the Llead "Young Advocates

cllale lrtrnd" :r:ri shail utilise the arrount by framing

quidelrnes tbl ll,e benellt of young advocates having

standing o1'less liurir se';en (07) vears.

17. Pending considerzrtior olthe regularization application ofthe

petitioncr dated 06.06.101(,^ s/i/[ils rrrro, obtaining as on toda,"-' shall

be maintaincil in re specl ,,i- tht stnrctures standing ,:n the sub.iect

propenv

\s a scouel ther',-'ro. nrisccllaneous applicarions, if any,

pending in thc rrlit petiliorr stand closed. No orcler a:i to costs.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

Rs. Ps.

r) Costs Quart f ed by Hon o e Cou.t (That

the Petitioner here,n ano Counsel for

tl'e petitioner are djrected to pay costs

o' Rs.2.00.000- (RLpees Two-Lakhs

Or'y) in favou. of the Cybe.abad

Municipal Corooration

ii) Costs Quantf.ed by Hon ble Court ( lhat

Ine eetitroner

here 1 and Counsel for

tne petrtione-

are or.ected to oay costs

ot Rs 1 00.000/- (Ruoees One Lakh

urlyl rn favour of Telangara Hiqh Cou.t

::r1"?,u:

Assoc.arron (THCAA)

High

::11 l"l

t,!" State of ieta.sara. Hrsh

r,ou rt Bu ild i;.rgs Hyderabad

2,00,000-00

TOTAL

//TRUE COPY//

1,00,00-00

3,00,000-00

SD/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY

ASSISANT REGISTRAR

ItON OFFICER

MUNICIPAL

AND URBAN

One fair copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE a. Vt.l4V$eU REDDY

(For His Lordship's Kind Perusal) \

To,

B

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development

Department, Secretariat, NTR Marg, Central Secretariat, Khairatabad,

Hyderabad, Telangana-500022

2. The Commissioner Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Madhapur, Hyderabad,

rep. by its Commissioner.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Narsingi -

Circle 45

4. The Assistant City Planner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Narsingi -

Circle 45

5. The Telangana High Court Advocates Association, High Court for the State of

Telangana

6. 11 L.R. Copies.

7. The Under Secretary, Unlon of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company

Affairs, New Delhi.

8. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library' High Court

Buildings, Hyderabad

9. One CC to SRl. THOOM SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUC]

10.One CC to SRI. LAXMAIAH KANCHANI, SC FOR

coRPoRATION [OPUC]

11.Two CCs to GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

DEVELOPMENT ,High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI

12.Two CD CoPies

d

TKS

CC TODAY

HIGH GOURT

DATED: 1710612026

ORDER

WP.No.18424 of 2026

s OF fc

1

t

o

l{

i

2

,.t

/1

on,Nns

1

. .rfl

, at'1y'

(_)

P

D

+

)

S/H

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

WITH COSTS

,10

,,L