[ 3255 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO: 11541 OF 2026

Between:

1, Smt.B. Reena Saxena, Wo B.Sailesh Saxena, Aged about 46 years, Occ.

Housewife, Rio H.No.8-2-68413154, Plot No.54, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

2. B.Sailesh Saxena, S/o Late.B.P.Saxena, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Advocate

R:/o H.No.8-2-68413154, Plot No.54, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

...PETITIONERS

AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Prl. Secretary, Municipal Administration

and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Lower Tank Bund,

Hyderabad, Rep by its Commissioner

3. The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC Circle-36, Khairtabad, Hyderabad,

Telangana

4. The Assistant City Planner, GHMC, Circle-36, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

5. M.Gowtham Reddy, S/o M.Brahma Reddy Aged about 44 years R:/o H.No.

357, Road No. 80,Phaselll, Jubliee Hills Hyderabad.

6. Amar Tibrewal, S/o Kishan Tibrewal aged about 55 years, Occ. Business R/o

8-2-68413152 and 8-2-68413153 (Old Rear side of Road No. 12, Banjarahills ,

Hyderabad

7. Archana, Wo Amar Tibrewal , aged about 49 years, OCC.housewife, Rl/o Rl/o

8-268413152 and 8-2-68413153 (Old Rear side of Road No. 12, Banjarahills ,

Hyderabad.

8. M.Godha Reddy, Wo Praveen Reddy aged about 43 years, Occ.Business,

Fl/o Plot NO.130,Road No.lS,Prashasan Nagar, Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad

9. Ratna Gulabrai Vatnani, w/o Gulabrai Vatnani aged about 65 years,

Occ.House wife R/o 8-2-68413152 and 8-2-68413153 Old Rear side of Road

No. 12, Banjarahills , Hyderabad.

l0.Gulabrai Vatnani, S/o Teoomal Vatnani Aged about 65 years Occ.Business

R/o 8-2-684/3152 and 8-2-68413153 (Old Rear side of Road No. 12,

Banyarahills, Hyderabad.

'1

1. C.Amamath, S/o Late C Balkishan Aged about 64 years, R/o 3-6-58/8i25l1/A,

Avanthi Nagar, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

12. Zuhooruddin Syed Madani, S/o Syed Tajuddin Madani, Aged about 56 years,

No 12-2-330lBl2,Murad Mahal, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.

13. Mrs Mahmooda Sultana, Wo Syed Tajuddin, aged about 65 years, Occ.

Business, R/o H.No. 12-2-33OlBl2, Mehdipatnam,Hyderabad

14. Syed Tajuddin Madani, S/o Late Syed Zahooruddin Madani, Aged about 72

years, Occ.Business, R/o H.No.12-2-330/8/2, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

15. Mr. Zahooruddin Syed Madani, S/o Mr. Syed Tajuddin Madani Aged about 45

years, Occupation. Business Rl/o H. No. '12-2-33018/2 Murad Nagar,

Asifnagar, Humayan Nagar, Hyderabad -28

16.Anwari begum, Wo Syed Zahooruddin Madhani aged about 76 years, Occ.

Retired Service Fi./o H.No. 8-1-5231267, Brindavan Colonty, Toli Chowki,

Hyderabad.

'l7.C.Veena,

D/o C.Amamath aged about 37 years, Occ.Housewife, R/o H.No. 3-

6-691812511, Avanthinagax, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

.....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 lssue a Writ order or direction , more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring

the inaction of the Respondents Authorities in not demolishing the illegal and

unauthorised constructions made by the unofficial respondents no. s to

'17

in the

plot

No 52 and 53 bearing house No. 8-2-68413152 and B-2-684t3t53 (Old ptot No. 52 and

53 in survey No. 129/53 situated at Rear side of Road No. 12,street No.5, Banjara

Green Colony, Banjarahills, Hyderabad without considering the Representations

dated. 6-10-2025, 15-12-2025, 29-01-202613-03-2026 of the petitioners as ifiegal,

arbitrary and contrary to the Principals of Natural justice and also violative of Articles

14, 19,21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and consequqnfly Direct the

Respondent No. I to 4 to demolish the illegal and unauthorized constructions made

by the unofficial respondents 5 to

.t

7 being carried out at

plot

No s2 and 53 bearing

house No. 8-2-68413152 and B-2-684t3t53 (Old ptot No. 52 and 53 in survey No.

129/53 situated at Rear side of Road No. 12,street No.5, Banjara Green Colony,

Banjarahills, Hyderabad immediately by considering the representations of the

petitione rs dated 26- 1 0-20 25,1 5 - 1 2-2025,25 -0 1 -2026,1 3-03 -2026 in the interest of

justice.

1

!.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 Respondent No. 1 to 4 to demolish the illegal and unauthorized mnstructions

made by the unofficial respondents 5 to 17 being carried out at Plot No 52 and 53

bearing house No. 8-2-68413/52 and 8-2-68413/53 (Otd plot No. 52 and 53 in survey

No. 129/53 situated at Rear side of Road No. 12,street No.S,Banjara Green Colony,

Banjarahills, Hyderabad immediately by considering the representations of the

petitioners dated. 26-10-2025, 15-12-2025, 29-01-2026, 13-03-2026, pending

disposal of main writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. ABDUL RAB MALIK

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : AGP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR

GHMC

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S to 17 : -

The Court made the following ORDER

TN THE HICH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.11541 ot2026

DATE OF ORDER: 16.04.2025

Between:

Smt. B.Reena Saxena and another.

. Petitioners

AND

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal

Administration and Urban Development Department and others.

... Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri Abclul ltab Malik, learned counsel for the petitioners,

Iearned Government Pleaclcr for MA&UD appearing for respondent No.1 and

Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for

respondent Nos.2 to 4. With their consent, the writ petition is being taken up

for disposal at the admission stagc itsclf .

2 Tl'ris writ pctition has been filcd seeking the following prayer:-

"...declarmg the inactiott of thc n:spontlents autlnritrcs in not demolishing

tht illegtl nnd tnuthorisetl constructiotts made by the unofficial

respondtnts no. 5 to 17 in tlu: PloI Nos. 52 and 53 bcaring houx

No. 8-2-684/3/52 and 8-2-684/3/53 (Old plot Nos.52 and Sj in surtny

No. 129/53 situatcd nt Renr sidc of Rotd No. 72, street No.S, Banjara

Grcen Colony, Bmlnrnltills Hyderabarl ruithout considering the

Represe n t n t o ns da tL, d 26 1 0 - 202 5, 1 5 -1 2-2025, 29 -01 -2026,1 343-2026 of

tlu petitioners as illegnl, nrbtrnry and contrnry to the

principals

ol

Naturnl justicc and. n[so utolatiue of Articles 74, 19, 21 and j00-A

of

Constitutiotr of lndin and consequently direct respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to

dentolish tlw illegnl nnd unnuthorized constntctions nade by the unofficid

responfunt Nos.5 lo 17 heing cnrried out nt Plot Nos.52 ind 53 benring

Itouse No. 8-2-684/3fr2 ttttd 8 2-684/3/53 (Oltl pLot Nos. 52 antl Sj ii

suntey No. 129/53 sitrmtt,d llertr sulc of llontl No.72, street No.S,

Banjara ()rcen Colony, Battyrtt hills Hydernbntt imnrcdiately by

consideri g tle represe n tntiott s of tlu petitioners rtated 26_10_202i,

1 5 -1 2-2025, e

4 1 -2026, 1 3 -0 3 -2026..."

i

I

I

2

3. Brief facts of the case as stated are that the petitioners claims to be the

owners and possessors of the land admeasuring 340.69 Sq.Yards of

H.No.8-2-584l3 /54, Plor No.54 in Survey No.l29/53 situated at Road No.12,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, having purchased the same aide ttvough registered

sale decd bearing document No.3738 of 2014 dated 29.09.2074. tt is submitted

that the neighbours of the southern side i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 17

constructed illegal compound wall within the petitioners premises and are

also carrying out unauthorized construction on Plot Nos.52 and 53 (Old plot

Nos.52 and 53 in Survey No.129/53) situated at Rear side of Road

No.12, Street No.5, Banjara Green Colony, Banjara Hills , Hyderabad. In view

of the same, the petitioners submitted their representations dated 26."10.2025,

75.72.2025, 29.01.2026 and 13.03.2026 respectively. However, no action has

been taken. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent

Nos.2 to 4 submits that if the petitioners' representations daled 26.10.2025,

1,5.12.2025, 29.07.2026, 73.03.2026, are still pending for consideration, the

respondent authorities would consider the same and take action in

accordance with law.

5. In the case on hand, it is pertinent to refer to Section 7(6) of the

Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certilication System

(T$BPASS) Act, 2020 (for short 'the TS-BPASS Act'), the same are extracted

hereunder:-

"7. Apptoudl of Buildtng Permisslons-

(6) Citizens shall be encouraged to bing to the

notice of Municipality and District Collector cases

where unauthoized construction or construction in

uiolation of or in excess of permissions, in the

monner pre_scribed.

The identrtg of such informers shatl be kept

confidential. All such cases sha/l be examined

tuithin a ueek from such information and

appropiate actton tnitlated. The inforiation shall

be incentiuized in all such cases uLhere the

informahon, fumished bg him is found to be

correct. "

6. For better appreciatioll, this Court deems it appropriate to refer some

of tlie relcvant sections of Greater Hy<lerabar{ Municipal corporation Act,

1955 (hercinafter referred to as'the Gt.tMC Act').

Section 428 ofthe GHMC Act, 1955

428. Notlce to beqiuen to commissioner of

intentlon to erecta bulldinq:(1) Euery

person ruho tntends to erect a building shall giue

to the commissioner notice of his said intention

in a form, obtained for this purpose und.er

Section 435, specifying the position of the

buitding intended Io be erected, the description

of building, the purpose for uhich it is intended.,

ifs dimensions and the name of the person

tuhom he intends to employ to superuise its

erection.

Section 433 ofGHMC Act7955

433. Notlce to begltEnto the Commissloner

of lntentlon to makeadditions,etc

"Euery person uho shall intend

(a) to make ony oddition to a building; or

(b) to make anA alteration or repoirs lo a

building; not being a frame-builcling, inuoluing

the remoual or re-erection of ang external or

partg-u.tall thereof or of ang Luall uthich supports

the roof thereof, to an extenL exceeding one -hatf

of such wall aboue the plinth leuel, such half to

be measure,l in superficial

feet; or

li

(c) to make any alteration or repairs to o frame_

building, tnuoluinq the remoual or

4

re-erection of more than one-half of the posts in

ang such wall thereof as aforesaid or inuoLuing

the remoual or re-erection of anq such uall

thereof os aJoresaid to an extent exceedtng one-

half of such uall aboue the plinth leuel, such

half to be meosured in superftciaL feet; or

(d) to make

inuoluing:-

any alteration in a building

(i) the sub-diuision of ang room in such building

so cs to conuert the same into.ttbo or more

seporate rooms-

(ii) the conuersion oJ ang passage or space tn

such building into a room or rooms; or

(e) to remoue or reconstruct ang portion of a

buitding abutting on o street uthich stands

u.tithin the regular line of such street; shall giue

to the Commissioner in a fonn

obtained for the

purpose under section 435 nottce of his

intention, specifging the portion oJ the building

in tuhich such uork b to be executed, the nature

and extent of the intended uork, the particular

part or par1s, rf ang, of such rttork u.thich is or

are intended to be used for human habitation

and the nane of the person uhom he intends to

employ to superuise its execution."

Sectfon 457 ofGHMC Act, 1955

"457. Inspection ol buildJings in course o;f

erection, alteration etc.:' The Commissioner

mag at ang time during the erection or

re-erection of a building or th.e execution of ang

such work as is descibed in Section 433 make

an inspection thereof ttithout giuing preuious

notice of his intention so to do.'

Sectlon 452 of GHMC A7955

452. Demolitlon or (rltera:tlon of the

building uork unla'usJullg comnenced,

cal'r'ied on or completed and appeal

thereoni (1) If the Commissioner is satisfied

that the construction or re-consttuction of ang

building or execution of ang work as described

in Section 433 is commenced or canied out

contrary to the prouisions of the Act or building

rules or bye-lanus made thereunder, he shall

mttke a proutsional order requiing the person

uho is consttucting or re-consttucting such

building or exeanting such tttork or has

constnlcted or re-constntcted such buiLding or

5

exec'uted such Luork to demotistt such

unauthorized construction or re_construction or

work uithin a peiod specified to bing such

constnlction or re construction of the building or

ttork in confonnitg tuith the prousions of the Act

or building rules or BAe-Ious made thireunder

and mag also dtrect that untit the said ord.er is

complied uith, the concemed person shall

refrain

from proceeding with suci constnlction

or recon.struction of the building or work,

Section456 ofGHMC$ct,7955

"Da.noerousStructures

Remova.l of structures, trees etc., tohich a.re in

ruins or likelg to falb (1) If it sha

"t ""g

iii.

appear to the Commissioner that anA st;cture

(including under lhis expression ong Orlaing, io,

,

pa.rapet, pauement,

Jloor, steps, railings, ioo, o,

u.ttndout frames or shutters ,, ,ooj, or other

stru.cture and angthing afftxed to or prijection

Jrom

or resting ona anA building, utalt, pirapet o, ith",

structure) is in ruinous condition or likilg to fall, or

is in a1g uay dangerous to ang person"o";;i;";,

resorling to or passing Ag, suci structure or" aritl

o,ther struchtre or place in the neighbor rhoold

lhereof, the Commissioner

maA, bq *nit"n ,oti"i,

require the ou)ner or occupier-oJ {uch structui.re to

do one or more of the

foltott_.,ing things, namelg:_

-"

(i) to pull doLun,

(ii) to secure,

(iii) to remoue, or

(iu) to repair such structure or thing, and to preuent

all cause of danger therefrom.

(2) The CommLssioner mag also, if he thinks fit,

require the said. owner o, o*pi., Ay tn" sita

notice, either forthuith or beyore proceeitng, t" p"ii

dou.tn, secure, remot)e or repair the sticturi or

things,

_to

set up a proper and sulJicient hoard or

Jence Jor lhe protection of passers bg and other

persons, uith a conuenient platfonn and

hand-rail, if there be room enough fo, ti.

"o^"

t:ii

Commissioner shalt think the same destrabie, i;

serue, rrs

footwag for passengers outside of such

noard or Jence.

(l) tf ,t appears to the Commissioner that the

danger from a stnlcture uhich is ruinous o, ofrirt

to fall is imm.inent, he mag, before giuing noti""-;;

aforesaid or before the peiod of'notiie .;;i;,

il

i

6

fence ofJ take dou.tn, secure or repair the said

structure or take such steps or cause u.tork to be

exeanted as mag be required to orrest the danger.

(4) AnA expenses incuned by llrc Commissioner

under sub-section (3) shalL be paid by the owner or

ocatpier of the structure.

(5) (o) Where the Commissioner is of opinion

uhether on receipt of an application or othenxise

that the onlg or th.e most conuenient mean-s by

uhich the ou)ner or ocanpier of structure such as is

refened to in sub-section (1) can pull dou.tn, secure,

reffLoue or repoir such stntcture, is bg enteing any

of the odjoining premises belonging to some other

person the Commissioner afier giuing such person

a reasonable opportunity of stating any objection

maA, Lf no such objection is raised or if ang

objectton uhich is raised appears to him inualid or

insufftcient, bg an order in u.titing, authoise the

said outner or occupier to enter such adjoining

prembes.

(b) Euery such order bearing the signature of the

Commissioner shall be a sufficient authoitA to the

person in *^hose Jauour it is made, or to any agent

or person employed bg htm for this purpose,

a.tter giuing to th.e oluner of the premises

reasonable written nol.ice of his in"tentior, so to do,

to enter upon the said premises with assistants

an-d. uorkmen, dt anA time betueen sunrise and

sun set, and to execute the necessan) u-tork.

(c) ln executing, any u.tork under this section as

little damage as possibLe shatl be done to the

ad,joining owner's propertg, and the owner or

occupier of premises for the benefit of which the

work is done, shall

-

(i) cause the u.tork to be exeatted ttrith the least

practicable delay;

(ii) pay compensation to anA person u.tho sustains

damage bg the execution of the said utork.

Sect{on 46 7-A ofGHMC Act, 7955

"46 7-A. Pou.rers to se(rl unauthorlzed,

construction/development of premlsesr

(1) It shall be laufut for the Commissioner,

at anA time, before or after making an order for

the remouaL or discontinuance oJ anA

unauthorized de uelopme nt or consttuction u nder

section 461, to make an order directing the

sealing of such deuelopment or propertA or

7

taktng the assistance of police, for the purpose

of carryinq out the prouisions of the Act."

Section 636 ofGHMCAct,7955

"636. Work or thing d.one ulthout nttltten

perrnission oJ the Commissioner to be

deemed unauthorized:- (1) If ony work or

thing requiring the u.titten pennission of the

Commissioner under ang prouision of this Act,

or ang rule, regulation or bge law is done bg

ana person uithout obtaining such Luritten

permission or, if such tLitten permksion is

subsequenttg suspended or reuoked. for ang

reason by the Commissioner, such u.tork or thing

shall be deemed to be unauthorised and subject

to an!/ other prouision of this Act the

Commissioner maA at anA time, by u.titten

notice, require that the some shall be remoued,

pulled down or undone as the case mag be, bg

the person so carrying out or doing if the person

carryinq out such work or dotng such thing ts

not the otuner at the time of such notice then the

owner at the time of giuing such notice shall be

liable Jor carrying out the requi-sitions of the

Commissioner.

(2) If within the peiod specifed tn such tuitten

notice the requisitions contained therein are not

catried out bg the person or ou)ner, as the case

mag be, lhe Commisstoner maA remoue or alter

such u.tork or undo such thing and the expenses

thereof shall be paid bg such person or ou)ner

as the case mag be."

7. On perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that the respondcnt

authorities are r'ested with statutory powers to inspect any property and after

putting on notice and after giving fair opportunity of hearing to the

concerned parties, may take appropriate action against the unauthorized

constructions on such properties, in accordance with law.

8

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Sports Club and Ors. Vs. Union

of lndin (IIOI) and Ors1, hetd that violators of the Town Planning Scheme

cannot be granted any relief. The relevant observations are as under:

"52. Before concluding, ue consider it necessary to

enter a caueat. In all deueloped countie' great

emplasis hos been laid on the planned

deuelopment of cities and urban areas. The obiect

of planned development has been achieued by

rtgorous enJorcement of master plans prepared

afier careful studg of complex issues, saentific

research qnd rdtionalisotion of laws. The people of

those counties haue greatlg contributed to tlrc

concept of pLanrrcd deuelopment of cities by stictlV

adhering to the planning ktws, tle moster plan

etc- Theg respect the lau;s enacted bg the

legislature Jor regulating planned deueLopment of

the cities and seldom there is a complaint of

uiolation oJ masler ptan etc- tn the consttuction of

buitdings, residential, uLstitutonql or commercial-

In contrast, scen,,no in the deueloping countries

Itke ours is substantially different. Though the

competent legislatures haue, from time to time,

enacted. laus for ensurirg planned deuelopment of

the cities and urban areos, eniorcement lhereof

has been extrentely poor and tle people haue

uiotated ttle mqster ptans, zoning plans and

building regulations and bge-laws txith impunitV.

In lasl Jour decades, almost all ctties, big or small,

have seen unplanned grou.tth In lhe 21st cettturg,

the menace of ittegal and unouthorized

consttactions and encroachments has acquired

monstrous proportions and everyone hos been

paging heavg pice for tL.e same. Dconomically

afJluent people and those hautng supporl of the

political and executiue apparatus of the Stale haue

consttucted build.tngs, commercial complexes,

multiplexes, malls etc n blotant violation of the

municipal and toun plamning laws, master plans,

zonal deuelopment plans qnd euen the sanctioned

buiding plans- In most of the cases of illeaal or

unduthorizedconstruct,,rns. the ors of the

municioal and.other reoulatoru bodiesturn blind

eue either dueto the influence of hioher

o or other

rectsons. Those tuho construct buildings in

utolation of tle releuant statutory provisions,

moster plan etc. and those who directlg or

in.directlg abet such uiolatiotts are totallg

unmindful of tle graue consequences of their

actions and/ or omissions on the present as well

'((2oo9l rs scc 7os)

9

os future generatiots of the country tahtch will be

lorced to liue in unplonned cities and urban areas.

The people belongirq fo this clqss do not reahze

thet the conslrucrions made in uiolation of the

releuant laws, master plan or zonal deuelopment

plan or sanctioned buildrng plon or the building s

used for o purpose other thon the one specifed in

lhe releuant statute or the masler plan etc., such

con*ructions Dut unbedrable burd.e^ on the

ubllcclcllttiemenities Uke u)q

e le ctricltu. se w erao e etc.doart from creatlno

chaos on the roads. Thepollution causbd due to

lraffi.c congestion affects the health of the roe.d

users. The pedestnans and people belonging lo

ueoker sections of the societg, who cannot afford

the luxtry of air- conditioned cars, are the worst

dctims of poltution. They su.ffer from skin diseases

of different tApes, asthma, allergies and euen more

dreaded drseases like cancer. It can only be a

rnotter oJ lmagination hou much the gouemmenl

lws to spetld on the treatment of such persons and

aLso for controlling pollution and aduerse impact

orr the ertuironment due to traflc congestion on the

roads and chaotic conditions created due lo illeqal

ond unauthoized constmctions. Thls Court hqs

romtime tome

buildis consf,ruct vlolation o

municioal qnd other laus and. emphasized.

that no comorontlse should be made ulth the

tounlannischeme q.o rellshould.

be oiuen to theviolato" of thctoun plo'r'rinq

scherlre etc. on theonound that he has soe'nt

substq.ntial a.ntount on co,r'structlo'raf the

butld.ins etc. - K. Ra'rndas Shenou a. Chiefo

o rsToton MunlI Councll

udipi 1974 t2) scc 5()6. Dr. G.N. Khaiurla

v. Delhi DeveloomentAuthorltu 199s 15)

SCC 762, M.I. Bullders Pttt.Ltd.u, Ro.dhen

Shuann So,hrl 7999 I5, SC.C 464. Frleads

ColonuDeuelopmcnt Committee a. State

of Or{ssa 2OO4 l& SCC 733, [fr.C. Mehta u.

Unlon of Indla.2006, SCC 399 cnd S.JV.

Chandrasekha.r U. Stolteof

53. Unfortunatelu, despite repeated judoments bg

the this Court and Hiqh Courts, the builders qnd

olher affluenl people enqaqed, in the constntction

octiuities, who haue, ouer the uears showft scant

respect for req.tlatoru mechanism envisaqed in the

municipol and other similar laws, as also the

ntdster plans, zonal deuelopment plans,

sanctioned plans etc., haue receiued

etlcour(tqemet and supporl from the State

apparatus. As and Luhen th.e courts haue passed

ortTers or the officers of local and other bodies

haue ktkcn action for ensuing riqorous compliance

.- r/ lou.rs relattnq to planned deuelopment of the

crltes anri ,uban oreos and issued directions for

Kdntdtaka 2006 l3l SCC 2Oa.

10

demolition of the illeqal/ unquthoriz'ed

consttuctions, those m pouer haue come fonar()

to protect the uronq doers etther bu tssuing

administratiue orders or enactittq laws for

requlariztttion of illeqal and unauthorized

constntctions irl the ftame of cornpossion qnd

hardship. Such actions haue done ineparable

ha.rm to the concept of planned deuelopment of the

cities and urban areas. It ls high time thqt the

executiue and political aoDatdtus of the

Stdte take serious vieuof thentena.ce of

llleo(,l and unduthorized, constructlons o,nd.

stoo thelr sttpoortto the lobbles of affluent

class of buildersand others. else even the

rural areasof the countru utilln urltaess

simllar cic conditlons.lEmoha.sls

suoolledl

22. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Ekta

Aplrrtments Co-ope?dtlue Housing Society Ltd.. and

Ors. Ys. Municipal Corporatlon of Murnbai and Ors

(2013) 5 SCC 357, held that Con-stitutional Courts ouqht not

to exercbe their equitable iurisdiction to requbrAe illeqal

and unauthDri.z,ed con-stnlcttons. The reLeuant obseruattons

ore as und.er:

"45- In uiew of the aboue disczssiort, we hold that

the Petitioners in the tralsferred case haue faiLed

to make out a case for directinq lhe Respottdents

to requtarize the construction made in uiolatron of

ttLe sanctioned plan. Rather, the ralio of the aboue-

noted iudqments and, in partta ar, I?oual

Paradise Hotel (P) Ltd- u. State of Haruana and

Ors. lsupral is clearlu attracted in tlrc present

case. Wa would llke to teiterate that no

authorltg adrmln:lsterilz.g rnunicipal lows qnd

other silmllar lquts can encourqge violation oJ

the sq.nctioaed Pldn- The Coutts dre also

expected to refraln lrom exercising equita.ble

jurisdlction lor reguldrization oJ lllegal and

u'1,a,uthorized consttactlorts else lt would

encourage uloldto"s of the planning lq.ws antd

d.est"oy the uery ld,ed and concept oJ planned.

deltelop'ment oJ urban a.s utell as rurq.l areas-"

(emphasis sltppliedt"

9. It is also relevant to refer to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295 of 2022 (2024 INSC 866) (Bulldozer's

Case), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave ccrtain directions and

guideli,res to the Government for manner of proceeding in demolition of the

unauthorized construction.

-.,_,_

11

10. Since the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955 mandates issuancc of

noticc to the pt,rsons conccrned and the GHMC authorities are empowered to

cxamine ancl tlecicle the issue with respect to unauthorized constructions, bv

issuing notice to tlte concerned parties, the respondent authorities are

directcd to issue notice to the concerned parties. As-such, in the present case,

issuance of notice to responLlent Nos.5 to 17 is dispensed with.

11. Having consi(lered the above facts and circumstance, recording thc

submission madc by the lcarned counsel appearing on either side, without

expressing an_y opinion on tl're mcrits of the case and after considering judicial

precedcnts n:fcrrcd to hcreinabove, this Court deems it appropriate to

dispose of thc writ petition directing the respondent authorities to considcr

the pctitioucrs' rcpresentations dated 26.10.2025,

75.1,2.2025,29.07.2026.13.03.2026 and after giving fair opportunity of hearing

to petitioners anti responclent Nos.5 to 17, shall pass appropriate orders

strictlv in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably,

within a period of four (04) wecks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order and communicate thc same to the petitioners. It is made clear that if thc

allegations macle by the petitioners are found to be hue, thc respondent

authorities shall take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law.

72. It is clarifiecl that in the event of respondent Nos.5 to 17 are otherwise

aggrievcd may avail remecly of filing application for the modification of this

order, in accordance with law.

72

13. With the above directions. this writ petitionISdisposed of

Miscellancous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to

costs

SD/. A.JAYASR

ASSISTANT RE R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To

SA

TKS

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration

Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyd

Udran Development

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC),

Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC Circle-36, Khairtabad, Hyderabad,

Telangana

4. The Assistant City Planner, GHMC, Circle-36, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

5. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, High

Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One @ to SRI ABDUL RAB MALIK, Advocate [OPUC]

7. One CC to SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC, Advocate (OPUC)

8. Two CD Copies

C.C. TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1610412026

ORDER

WP.No.11541 of 2026

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION

WITHOUT COSTS.

-

.1rri

l'T/rT

l/.a."

-

2t

$9flNn

c\

-:t

./

.:L

t.

(

-

\.'

(-. \

,,

j. -,<-, '.

r5.i1;::,;i rr:\'/

_\:3.::_-

-

,