1. Writ petition challenging demolition order for unauthorized construction occupying common area and footpath. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 265
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
N.V. Shravan Kumar, J.
Smt. Indumathi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.2645 of 2026
Decided On : 02-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohd. Ghulam Rasool
For the Respondent: Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohd. Ghulam Rasool
For the Respondent: Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing
Payment of municipal tax does not regularize unauthorized constructions. Encroachments on public footpaths must be removed to ensure pedestrian safety, and courts should not exercise equitable jurisdiction to regularize such illegalities, regardless of past inaction by authorities.
Headnote:(A) GHMC Act, 1955; TS-bPASS Act, 2020; Constitution of India, Article 300A - Unauthorized construction on footpaths - Removal of encroachments - Payment of property tax for a commercial extension does not regularize illegal construction or grant a right to occupy public footpaths - Constitutional Courts should not exercise equitable jurisdiction to regularize illegal constructions as it would encourage violators of planning laws. (Paras 10, 12, 15)
(B) Town Planning and Municipal Laws - No relief should be granted to violators of town planning schemes - Illegal constructions put an unbearable burden on public facilities and create hazardous conditions for pedestrians - Such violations must be dealt with strictly to uphold the rule of law. (Paras 11, 13)
(C) Municipal Action - Delay or laches by civic authorities in taking action against unauthorized construction does not bar the removal of such structures, provided they remain illegal and unauthorized. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order directing the removal of unauthorized constructions on the ground floor of a property. It was alleged that the constructions occupied the common area and public footpath. The petitioner contended that the property had been in possession since 2010 and that the municipal authorities had already assessed and collected commercial property tax on the extended plinth area, which suggested regularity. Evidence showed the plinth area increased from 700 to 1052 square feet, confirming the encroachment on the public footpath.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had encroached upon the public footpath to extend a commercial shop, forcing pedestrians to walk on busy roads. The fact that municipal authorities collected tax on the revised plinth area does not legalize the unauthorized construction or the encroachment of public land.
Issues: Whether the payment of commercial property tax by the petitioner constitutes regularization of unauthorized construction and whether the municipal authority is justified in ordering the demolition of structures encroaching upon a public footpath.
Ratio Decidendi: Unauthorized constructions, particularly those obstructing public footpaths, must be demolished to ensure pedestrian safety and adherence to urban planning. The acceptance of tax by municipal authorities does not create a vested right in favor of the encroacher nor does it prevent the authorities from taking corrective action against illegalities. Courts must adopt a strict approach and refrain from judicial regularization of buildings erected without requisite permissions.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
-
constitutional law
-
right to property
- article 300a (Para 1)
-
right to property
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims no unauthorized construction and regular property tax payment; GHMC asserts unauthorized rooms running commercial activity on footpath. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Footpath encroachment endangers pedestrians. Payment of tax does not legalize unauthorized construction. Authorities failed to act despite court orders. (Para 9 , 10 , 18 , 19 )
4. Unauthorized constructions on public footpaths must be demolished; no equitable relief for violators of town planning laws. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; GHMC directed to demolish unauthorized construction and restore footpath; compliance report required within three months. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
6. Can unauthorized construction on a public footpath be regularized by paying property tax?
No, paying property tax does not legalize unauthorized construction. The civic authority retains the right to demolish such constructions. (Para 15 , 18 )
7. Can a court grant equitable relief to a violator of town planning laws?
No, courts must not exercise equitable jurisdiction to regularize illegal constructions. Violators cannot be granted relief as it encourages flouting planning laws. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
8. Does delay by municipal authorities in taking action bar them from later demolishing unauthorized construction?
No, delay or laches does not prevent a municipal authority from taking action to remove illegal and unauthorized constructions, as no time limit is prescribed. (Para 16 )
ORDER :
N.V. Shravan Kumar, J.
This writ petition is filed seeking following prayer:-
“to issue a Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent No.3 vide proceedings No. 48/UC/CIR-41/TPS/GHMC/2025 dated 20-1-2026 directing to remove the unauthorized construction within 15 days, otherwise proceed to demolish the petitioner unauthorized construction rooms running commercial activity Bearing No. 1-8-1/B8/F4 with plinth area 1052 Sq. yards property bearing No. MIG-II, Phase I, Block No. 8,Flat No. 4, Ground Floor , Baghlingampally, Hyderabad, is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of GHMC Act and Rules made there under and also violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same”
2. Facts in brief as stated in this writ petition are that respondent No.3 - the Deputy Commissioner, Circle - 41, GHMC, Abids, Hyderabad, issued show cause notice dated 23.12.2025 to petitioner, under the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955 read with Section 10 of TS-bPASS Act, 2020 . The petitioner submitted explanation to the show cause notice on 19.01.2026. The said show cause was issued based on a complaint received from respondent No.5 stating that certain unauthorized constructions are being carried out by the petitioner occupying common area and footpath of premises at Pr.No.Flat No.4, Block No.8, MIG-2, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad, and directed the petitioner to submit explanation to the show cause notice within fifteen (15) days as to why the unauthorized construction should not be demolished departmentally, failing which action will be taken as per Rules in force. A copy of photograph of the unauthorized constructions on the subject property was also forming part of the said show cause notice. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.No.2022 of 2026 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 22.01.2026 disposed of the writ petition directing respondent No.3 to consider the explanation dated 19.01.2026 submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 23.12.2025 and pass orders in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.5, and pending enquiry pursuant to the show cause notice dated 23.12.2025, respondent No.3 was directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. The order was passed without going into the merits, as such notice to respondent No.5 was dispensed with in that writ petition. By that time the respondent No.3 issued impugned notice dated 20.01.2026. The said orders were issued after considering the reply of the petitioner dated 17.01.2026 and 19.01.2026. In the said order, it was stated that based on a complaint received from respondent No.5 stating that the petitioner has illegally constructed shops by occupying common area and footpath of premises at Pr.No.Flat No.4, Block No.8, MIG-2, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad. A copy of the photograph of the extent of unauthorized construction which is existing in front of the flats was also been appended in the order dated 20.01.2026. In the impugned orders, it is further submitted that the contentions of the petitioner are not correct and does not convey the existing possession on ground, as such, the explanation/reply submitted was rejected, and the petitioner was directed to remove unauthorized constructions within 15 days, failing which the GHMC would proceed to demolish the unauthorized constructions departmentally enforcing recovery of the cost thereof from the petitioner. Questioning the order dated 20.01.2026, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The petitioner submits that there are no unauthorized constructions and no application was filed for renovation of subject premises from the date of purchase and the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property from 25.01.2010. The said property was purchased by the petitioner from her vendor who ear
