Municipal authorities are statutorily obligated to consider representations regarding unauthorized constructions and take appropriate action following due process of law, as violators of town planning schemes are not entitled to equitable relief or regularization.

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in not considering petitioners’ representations dated 19.05.2025, 29.07.2025, 01.10.2025 and 15.11.2025 made against respondent No.5, who is carrying on illegal and unauthorized construction on Plot No.29 in Survey Nos.6, 7 and 8 situated at Boduppal Municipal Corporation (now under GHMC Boduppal Circle, Medipally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana State) (hereinafter referred as “subject property”) despite issuance of memo No.449/2014-B1(GO) by the District Panchayat Officer, dated 01.11.2014. A consequential prayer is sought to direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider the aforesaid representations made against respondent No.5, who is carrying on illegal and unauthorized constructions on the subject property.

2. Brief facts of the case as stated are that the 1st petitioner claims to be absolute owner and possessor of the subject property. A civil dispute in respect of the subject property is pending on the file of learned II Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District, L.B.Nagar in O.S.No.778 of 2012 and due to bifurcation of districts, the suit was renumbered as O.S.No.1185 of 2025. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the respondent No.5 without any manner of right, title or authority, interfered with the subject property and carried out illegal and unauthorized construction over the subject property without obtaining any valid permissions from the competent authority. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.5, the petitioner filed many representations before respondent authorities. But, till date, no action has been initiated on the aforesaid representations submitted by the petitioner. As such, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the aforesaid representations of the petitioner are still pending for consideration, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the same and take action in a time bound period.

4. On the other hand, Mr. P.Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing for respondents Nos.2 to 4 submits that the petitioners’ representations will be considered, if not already considered, and appropriate action would be initiated, in accordance with law, and prays this Court to pass appropriate orders.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and perused the material made available on the record.

6. Since this Court, time and again, directed the Municipal Authorities to initiate action against the illegal constructions by following due process of law, it is noticed that the authorities are failing to initiate action against the illegal constructions. However, in some of the cases, authorities are issuing statutory notices and thereafter not proceeding further to initiate further course of action unless writ petitions are filed for not considering complaints/ representations made to civic authorities.

7. It is not out of place to mention Section 7(6) of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS-BPASS) Act, 2020 (for short ‘the TS-BPASS Act’) which also encourages citizens to put on notice to the Civic Authorities regarding unauthorized constructions. Secti