SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12226

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.V. Shravan Kumar, J
Mohd Mujahid Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
W.P. No.11213 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not Listed
For the Respondents: Raparthi Venkatesh

Municipal authorities are statutorily obligated to act upon citizen complaints regarding unauthorized construction by conducting inspections and following due process of law to maintain planned urban development, as mandated by the GHMC Act and TS-BPASS Act.

Headnote:(A) Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS-BPASS) Act, 2020 - Section 7(6) - Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 - Sections 428, 433, 451, 452, 456, 461-A, 636 - Illegal and unauthorized construction - Writ petition filed against inaction of municipal authorities - Compliance with statutory notice requirements - Civic authorities empowered to inspect and take action against unauthorized developments - Authorities are duty-bound to examine informers' reports regarding violations.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an adjacent resident, filed a writ petition alleging that respondents No.6 to 12 were carrying out unauthorized construction up to six floors on a property in Attapur, Hyderabad. A representation was made to the municipal authorities regarding violations of set-backs and unauthorized vertical expansion, but no action was initiated.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that statutory provisions under the GHMC Act grant authorities necessary powers to inspect and initiate demolition or regularisation proceedings. It emphasized that authorities must act upon representations following due process and provided clear precedents regarding the necessity of curbing illegal construction to ensure planned urban development.

Issues: Whether municipal authorities have a duty to act upon citizen representations regarding unauthorized construction and what is the required procedure for such enforcement.

Ratio Decidendi: Municipal authorities are legally obligated to consider representations of citizens against unauthorized constructions. The Court, relying on established precedents, directed the authorities to verify the allegations and pass orders in accordance with the law within a specified time frame.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to the authorities to consider the representation and pass orders within six weeks.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's grievance regarding illegal construction and municipal inaction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. statutory duties of municipal authorities under ghmc and ts-bpass acts. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. judicial precedents emphasizing strict enforcement of building and planning laws. (Para 11 , 12)
4. court directive for administrative action on unauthorized construction claims. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)

ORDER:

Questioning inaction on the part of the respondent No.5 in preventing the respondents No.6 to 12 from making the illegal and unauthorized construction over the 200 square yards of land belonging to the respondents No.6 to 10 bearing Municipal Door No.2-6-26/2 situated at Attapur, Rajendranagar, GHMC Circle No.20, Hyderabad, (subject property) petitioner filed the present writ petition with a consequential prayer to direct the respondents No.1 to 5 to demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction over the subject property.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the adjacent resident of the subject property. The respondents No.6 to 12 have obtained permission for construction of two floors and are making illegal and unauthorized construction up to six floors over the subject property.

3. In this regard, petitioner made a representation dated 07.03.2026 to the respondent No.5 against illegal and unauthorized construction of stilt + 6 floors, non maintainable set backs and construed the building on footpath over the subject property however, the official respondents did not take any action thereon. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel Sri Raparthi Venkatesh appearing for the official respondents No.2 to 5 would submit that the representation dated 07.03.2026 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 Standing Counsel appearing for the official respondents and perused the material made available on the record.

6. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he brought to the notice of the official respondents, by way of representation dated 07.03.2026, about the illegal/unauthorised construction at the subject property, the official respondents have failed to initiate any action against the illegal construction made by the unofficial respondents No.6 to 12.

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 petitions are filed for not considering complaints/ representations made to civic authorities.

8. 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. Section 7(6) of the TS-BASS Act is extracted for reference.

“7. Approval of Building Permissions-

….

(6) Citizens shall be encouraged to bring to the notice of Municipality and District Collector cases where unauthorized construction or construction in violation of or in excess of permissions, in the manner prescribed. The identity of such informers shall be kept confidential. All such cases shall be examined within a week from such information and appropriate action initiated. The information shall be incentivized in all such cases where the information, furnished by him is found to be correct.”

9. For better appreciation, this Court deems it appropriate to refer some

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top