Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 11649
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.V. Shravan Kumar, J
Ghousia Begum – Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana – Respondent
W.P. No.8047 of 2026
Municipal authorities are statutorily obligated to act against illegal and unauthorized constructions after conducting a fair inquiry, providing an opportunity of hearing to affected parties, and verifying sanctioned plans in compliance with the GHMC Act, 1955.
Headnote:(A) GHMC Act, 1955 - Sections 428, 433, 451, 452, 456, 461-A and 636 - TS-bPASS Act, 2020 - Section 7(6) - Illegal construction - Mandamus directing demolition - Petitioner alleged illegal construction by a neighbor and failure of authorities to act upon a complaint - Court observed that authorities are empowered under municipal laws to inspect premises and initiate action against unauthorized construction - Court directed authorities to process the representation after notice and fair hearing to parties. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13)
(B) Writ jurisdiction - Equitable relief - Courts should not exercise equitable jurisdiction to regularize illegal constructions as it violates planned urban development. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is the owner of premises situated in Hyderabad. The petitioner complained about the unauthorized construction and the opening of a new unauthorized access point by respondent No.6, alleging violations of municipal norms and setback requirements mandated by the GHMC Act, 1955. Despite a written complaint, the authorities failed to take action, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the municipal authorities are duty-bound to inspect properties and act against illegal constructions as per statutory mandates. The Court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's representation and follow due process by serving notice to the parties involved.
Issues: Whether the Court should issue a mandate for the demolition of alleged unauthorized constructions and the process to be followed by municipal authorities to address such grievances.
Ratio Decidendi: Municipal authorities possess statutory powers to address unauthorized constructions; therefore, the matter must be processed by providing the parties with a fair opportunity of hearing before taking any final action, while ensuring compliance with building bylaws.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner requests demolition of unauthorized construction and respondent assures inquiry. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court outlines statutory powers of municipal authorities to address illegal constructions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. judicial precedent emphasizes no relief for violators of town planning laws. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. court disposes of writ with directions to hold a hearing and decide on merit. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized and illegal construction being carried out by respondent No.6 at House bearing No.17-2-870/3, Madannapet, Hyderabad, in flagrant violation of the applicable municipal laws, building regulations, and sanctioned building plan. Despite the same having been brought to the attention of the respondent authorities through a written complaint dated 24.02.2026, no action has been taken. Therefore, the petitioner seeks consequential directions to demolish the said illegal and unauthorized construction made by respondent No.6 and to close the unauthorized opening/access created towards the back side of the said property.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the premises bearing House No.17-1-4/A/2/1/A, Band Naka, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad. It is further submitted that respondent No.6 has demolished the existing structure in the premises bearing House No.17-2-870/3 and has commenced fresh construction without adhering to the terms and conditions of the building permission allegedly granted by the GHMC and without following the prescribed municipal norms, regulations, and setback requirements mandated under the GHMC Act, 1955 and the Telangana Municipal Building Rules, 2012. It is submitted that, for several decades, there was no access or entrance towards the back side of the said property. However, respondent No.6 has allegedly opened a new access towards the backside, which did not exist earlier, thereby causing inconvenience, disturbance to public peace, and creating a sense of insecurity among the neighbouring residents. It is further contended that due to such unauthorized opening and ongoing construction activity, strangers are frequently gathering in the lane, resulting in nuisance and disturbance to the locality.
3. While so, petitioner made a written complaint/representation dated 24.02.2026 to the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Charminar Zone Office, Sardar Mahal, Charminar, Hyderabad, regarding unauthorized and illegal constructions, but respondent Nos.2 to 5 has not taken any action against the said illegal construction. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the written complaint/representation dated 24.02.2026 will be considered, if not already considered, and appropriate action would be initiated, in accordance with law, and would submit to pass appropriate orders.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the material made available on the record.
6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner had brought to the notice of respondent No.3, by way of written complaint/representation dated 24.02.2026, about the illegal/unauthorized construction, the respondent No.3 has failed to initiate any action against the illegal construction made by respondent No.6.
7. 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 petiti
